Dismissed

Gomati Devi v. the Commissioner

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2023CSA/170/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction. The court held that since the appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove ownership of the land, the findings of the courts below were correct and required no interference.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed; the stay application and pending applications are also dismissed.

Gomati Devi Vs the Commissioner — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:27923]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 170/2020

¶4

Gomati Devi W/o Shri Pura Ram Gaur, Aged About 74 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o 4, Hanwant Colony, Raika Bagh, Jodhpur, Presently Residing At Lakshmi Nagar, Opposite Officers Colony Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, Near Polytechnic College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dheerendra Singh Sodha

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶11

Judgment

¶12

04/09/2023

¶13

The present second appeal has been preferred against judgment and decree dated 07.09.2020 passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur District in Civil Appeal No.11/2017 whereby the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Jodhpur District in Civil Original Suit No.256/2014 (364/2012) has been affirmed. Vide the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2017, learned trial Court proceeded on to dismiss the suit for permanent injunction as preferred by the plaintiff.

¶14

The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant Municipal Corporation was threatening to dispossess her from the land of her ownership measuring 15 x 60 sq.ft. No written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant neither was any evidence led by him. On basis of pleadings made by the plaintiff, one issue was framed by learned trial Court which reads as under :

[2023:RJ-JD:27923]

[CSA-170/2020]

(2 of 3)

“01vk;k oknh] izfroknh dks oknh ds okni= ds in la[;k 01 o 02 esa of.kZr jgoklh; tk;nkn esa o’kksZa iqjkus cus gq, iDds fuekZ.k dk;Z Vhu “ksM] yksgs dh tkfy;kW o njokts ij ls oknh dks csn[ky djus ;k djokus ls izfroknh dks tfj;s LFkkbZ fu’ks/kkKk ikcan djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS \”

¶19

While deciding the said issue, the learned trial Court specifically concluded that no document pertaining to the ownership of the plaintiff was placed on record. The Court found that although in her affidavit in evidence, the plaintiff had averred that she had purchased the land in question vide agreement dated 10.11.2011 from one Dev Krishna Gaur but no such agreement was placed on record. Further, learned Court took into consideration the contradictions in the statements of the plaintiff in her cross-examination wherein she at one instance submitted that there was a Gali adjoining to her residential house whereas on second instance she submitted that there was a open space. In view of the fact that the plaintiff failed to prove her ownership on the land in question, both the Courts below reached to the concurrent finding that she was not entitled for any injunction in her favour.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.

¶21

A perusal of the statements of PW-1 Smt. Gomati Devi as recorded makes it clear that counsel for the plaintiff specifically submitted before the Court that he did not intend to place on record the original documents and therefore, the copies of the documents as placed on record could not be marked as exhibits. The note as made by the learned Judge reads as under :

[2023:RJ-JD:27923]

[CSA-170/2020]

(3 of 3)

“fnŒ 16&8&16 dks “kiFk fnykbZ xbZ uksV & odhy oknh }kjk ewy nLrkost is”k ugha djuk pkgk ftlls izn”kZ ugha Mkys tk ldsA uksV & xokg us eq[; ijh{k.k ds :i esa izLrqr “kiFk&i= dks lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;k bl ij xokg ds gLrk{kj gSA”

¶26

In view of the admitted fact that no document was exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff to prove her ownership on the land in question and rather the same was specifically denied, this Court is of the clear opinion that the concurrent findings as arrived by the learned Courts below does not deserve any interference and no substantial question of law arise in the present appeal.

¶27

Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed .

¶28

The stay application and the pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.

¶29

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶30

30-Vij/-

Gomati Devi v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gomati Devi v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hamid Khan Vs Lrs of Shri Mustafa Khan

Firm Khubi Ram Shri Niwas and Ors. Vs Food Corporation of India

Lanco Solar Energy Private Ltd. Vs Tansingh Chouhan

Lrs of Bhawani Singh Vs Karan Singh

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs Sohani

Mohammad Saud Vs Dalle Khan