Dismissed

Aadil Hussain v. Lata Chaudhary

Rajasthan HC5 Sept 2023CMA/1335/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of a temporary injunction application. The appellant contested a lower court's finding of variance in land measurements between documents. This court held the sale deed lacked specific measurements and affirmed the lower court's observation that measured variances existed between the plaintiff's map and authorized map

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The stay petition and all pending applications were also dismissed.

Aadil Hussain Vs Lata Chaudhary — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:28928]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1335/2023

¶4

Aadil Hussain 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.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Lata Chaudhary W/o Shri Vijaysingh Saharan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 60, Soni Ji Ki Baadi, District Nagaur (Raj.)

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Piyush Chauhan

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶11

Order

¶12

05/09/2023

¶13

The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Nagaur in Civil Misc. Case No.7/2023 (CIS No.7/2023) whereby the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the plaintiff for temporary injunction has been dismissed.

¶14

The learned Court below while considering the aspect of prima facie case specifically observed that there was a variance in the measurements of the land in question in the two documents as placed on record by the plaintiff himself.

¶15

The Court below observed the variance as under:

¶16

(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:28928]

[CMA-1335/2023]

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

This Court while hearing the learned counsels thoroughly examined the documents as placed on record by the appellant.

¶25

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:28928]

[CMA-1335/2023]

(3 of 3)

This Court therefore, does not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned. Hence, the present appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed .

¶30

The stay petition as well as all the pending applications also stand dismissed.

¶31

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶32

334-Sachin/-

Aadil Hussain v. Lata Chaudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aadil Hussain v. Lata Chaudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banshi Lal Vs Balkishan and Ors.

Sanju Leel Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Saud Vs Dalle Khan

Nand Ram Vs Lachi Ram

Reshmi Devi Vs Lrs of Virendra Kumar

Mohd. Rafiq Vs Taukir Ahmad Andanr.