An appeal against the dismissal of an application for temporary injunction. The High Court upheld the lower court's rejection, affirming that discrepancies in land measurement documents justified the decision, noting the sale deed did not specify measurements.
The appeal was dismissed; the stay petition and pending applications were also dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023:RJ-JD:28254]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1334/2023
Aadil Husain S/o Shri Ayub Nagauri, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Basani Behlima, District Nagaur (Raj.), At Present Resident of 35-36, Building Number 113, Barkat Ali Virani Marg, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
----Appellant
Versus
Aryan Chaudhary S/o Shri Sheeshram Chaudhary, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Sainik Basti, District Nagaur (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Piyush Chauhan
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
05/09/2023
The Court below observed the variance as under:
(i) In the map placed on record, the length of the property in question from north to south was shown to be 114 ft. and that of
[2023:RJ-JD:28254]
[CMA-1334/2023]
(2 of 3)
east to west was shown to be 102 ft. whereas in the authorized map, the north to south wall was comparatively longer than the east to west side.
(ii) In the authorized map, the east side was shown to be 171.7 ft., west side was shown to be 161.6 ft., north side was shown to be 112.10 ft. and south side was shown to be 128.8 ft. Whereas in the map placed on record by the plaintiff, the north side has been shown to be 195.3 ft. which is totally different from the authorized map.
(iii) In the sale deed, the northern side is shown to be 66.5 ft. whereas the same has been shown to be 102.1 ft. in the map placed on record by the plaintiff.
(iv) The west side in the authorized map is shown to be 161.6 ft. whereas the same has been shown to be of 114.10 ft. by the plaintiff in the map prepared by him.
This Court examined the registered sale deed vide which the plaintiff purchased the land in question; the map as annexed along with the plaint; the Commissioner Report; and the authorised revenue maps of the land in question. After perusal and comparison of the above documents, this Court is of the opinion that firstly, sale deed of the plaintiff does not specify any measurement of the land in question and secondly, the observation of the learned Court below that there is a variation in the measurements in the authorised maps and map placed by plaintiff is completely in consonance with the documents available on record.
[2023:RJ-JD:28254]
[CMA-1334/2023]
(3 of 3)
(REKHA BORANA),J
333-Sachin/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to have interfered with the dismissal of the temporary injunction application due to alleged variance in land measurement documents.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aadil Husain
Aryan Chaudhary
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
