Dismissed

Lrs of Bhawani Singh v. Karan Singh

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2023CSA/8/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal challenged the confirmation of a suit decreeing the plaintiff's right of easement over a way. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the way existed since years, was used by both parties, and no alternative way was available, thus dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal and the stay petition were dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree of the courts below.

Lrs of Bhawani Singh Vs Karan Singh — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:28618]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 8/2020

¶4

LR’s of deceased Bhawani Singh

¶5

Dilip Singh S/o Late Shri Bhawani Singh, Aged About 46 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Village Nimbera Kallan, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali (Raj.).

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Karan Singh S/o Shri Anand Sing, (Delete Dated 14-11-2018)

¶9

Hanuwant Singh S/o Shri Karan Singh, R/o Village Nimbera Kallan, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali (Raj.).

¶10

Vijay Singh S/o Shri Rawat Sing, R/o Village Nimbera Kallan, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali (Raj.).

¶11

Bhawani Singh S/o Shri Vijay Singh, R/o Village Nimbera Kallan, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali (Raj.).

¶12

Shivraj Singh S/o Shri Vijay Singh, R/o Village Nimbera Kallan, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali (Raj.).

¶13

Hari Vikram Singh S/o Late Shri Bhanwani Singh, R/o Village Nimbera Kallan, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali (Raj.).

¶14

Surender Singh S/o Late Shri Bhanwari Singh, R/o Village Nimbera Kallan, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali (Raj.).

¶15

Chawand Singh S/o Shri Ugam Singh, Adopted son of Mod Singh, R/o Village Nimbera Kallan, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali (Raj.).

¶16

Smt. Samander Kanwar W/o Shri Mahendra Singh, R/o Village Nimbera Kallan, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali (Raj.).

¶17

Bhom Singh S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, R/o Village Nimbera Kallan, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali (Raj.)

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

For Appellant(s) : Appellant Mr. D.S. Rathore, present in person.

[2023:RJ-JD:28618]

[CSA-8/2020]

(2 of 6)

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶24

Judgment

¶25

04/09/2023

¶26

The present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jaitaran, District Pali in Civil Appeal No.07/2013 whereby the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bar, District Pali in Original Civil Suit No.31/2007 has been dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of easement of way and permanent injunction has been affirmed.

¶27

The plaintiffs preferred a suit for declaration of easement of way and permanent injunction against the defendants. Along with the plaint, a site map was annexed which was exhibited as Ex.1. It

¶28

was averred by the plaintiffs that the way marked as v to l and further l to N in the map, though not recorded as public way in the revenue record, was used by the plaintiffs and the defendants as a way, since years. It was averred that the property in question was obtained by the defendants in some execution proceedings initiated against ancestors of the plaintiffs and at that point of time too, the way v to l and l to N existed on the site and as per the mutual consent, it is being used by all the parties since centuries. It was therefore, prayed that it may be

(3 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JD:28618]

[CSA-8/2020]

declared that the plaintiffs have a right of easement qua the said way and the defendants, who were trying to obstruct the said way, be restrained from the same.

¶33

The case of the defendants was that there was an alternative way available to the plaintiffs to have access to their agriculture fields and therefore, they cannot claim right of easement qua the way in question.

¶34

It is relevant to note that the defendants did not deny the factum of existence of the way v to l and l to N which ran across their fields.

¶35

Both the Courts below reached to a specific finding that the way in question existed on the site since years and the parties had been using the same therefore, the plaintiffs definitely possessed the right of easement qua the said way. It is also the specific finding of both the Courts below that there is no alternative way connecting the field of the plaintiffs to the recorded way marked as d [k in the site map. In view of above findings, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed and it was declared that the plaintiffs had right of easement qua the way in question and further, the defendants were restrained from raising any obstruction in the user of the said way.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the findings as recorded by both the Courts are totally contrary to the material available on record and hence deserve to be set aside. He submitted that the site map Ex.1 as placed on record by the plaintiffs was neither the actual map of the site nor the same was

(4 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JD:28618]

[CSA-8/2020]

prepared by any revenue authority and hence the same could not have been relied upon. Learned counsel submitted that it was proved on record that there was an alternative way available to the plaintiffs which fact has been cursorily ignored by the Court below.

¶41

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

¶42

A bare perusal of the site map Ex.1 as placed on record by the plaintiffs and the revenue map Ex.2, the official map of the site, makes it clear that the same are identical so far as the position of khasras and the recorded way is concerned. The recorded way d [k as well as l n has been shown in both the maps at the same place. Even the way v to l has also been shown at the same place therefore, the ground as raised by learned counsel for the appellants that Ex.1 could not have been relied upon, does not hold water.

¶43

So far as the existence of way in question and user of the same by the plaintiffs since years is concerned, the same was also proved on record. The site report was prepared in presence of concerned Tehsildar and Patwari wherein the way in question was reported to be existing and no alternate way was reported to be available. The said report was prepared in presence of one of the defendants also. When cross-examined on the aspect of the said site report, DW1 Bhawani Singh specifically admitted that he had no objection to the said report. It was further admitted that Chawand Singh, his brother, in whose presence the site map was

(5 of 6)

[CSA-8/2020]

[2023:RJ-JD:28618]

prepared, did not inform the Tehsildar of any alternate way and further that he never raised any objection regarding the site report. It was also admitted that the interim order to maintain status quo on basis of the report of Tehsildar was passed with the consent of both the parties.

¶48

Learned trial Court considered the specific admissions of the defendants’ witnesses as under :

¶49

“fcuk; nkok ds lEcU/k esa i=koyh ij vkbZ lk{; dk voyksdu djs rks xokg Mh MCyq 1 Hkokuhflag o Mh MCyq 2 ds”kosUnz flag us viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa fnukad 01-09-07 o 05-09-07 dks ekxZ vo:) ugh djuk crk;k gSA odhy oknh }kjk dh xbZ ftjg esa mlus Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fookfnr jkLrk [kqyk gqvk FkkA ml ij ckM oxSjg ugha FkhA mlds HkkbZ pko.M flag us fookfnr jkLrs ls vkus tkus ds fy, fdlh dks ugh jksdkA”

¶50

Learned trial Court on basis of evidence as led by the parties, concluded as under :

¶51

“izfroknh us oknhx.k ds bl dFku dk [k.Mu viuh lk{; ls ugha fd;k gS fd mlds ikl tehu vkus ls iwoZ fookfnr jkLrs fcUnq n]p o N]l o l]c o v]c dk jkLrk mldh tehu [kjhns tkus ls iwoZ gh vfLrRo esa ugh jgk gksA fnukad 01-03-08 dks U;k;ky; ds vkns”kkuqlkj i+{kkdkjku o muds izfrfuf/k rFkk vf/koDrkx.k dh mifLFkfr esa rglhynkj jk;iqj ds }kjk ns[ks x;s] ekSds dh fjiksVZ izn”kZ 11 esa Hkh fookfnr jkLrs dh fLFkfr dks Li’V fd;k x;k gSA fookfnr jkLrs ds vfLrRo dks ,]ch]lh rFkk Mh] bZ fcUnqvks ls Li’V fd;k x;k gS vkSj mldk ekSds ij mi;ksx gksuk crk;k gSA ml le; izfroknhx.k us ;g Li’V fd;k x;k gS fd mUgsa jkLrs dks dHkh cUn ugha fd;k x;k gSA

(6 of 6)

[2023:RJ-JD:28618]

[CSA-8/2020]

mDr ekSdk fjiksVZ ds lEcU/k esa i{kdkjksa ds }kjk vkifr Hkh ugha dh xbZ gSA U;k;ky; esa ifjf{kr gksus ds le; oknhx.k ds xokgksa us fookfnr jkLrs ds vfLrRo dks lkfcr fd;k gSA jktLo fjdksMZ esa nf”kZr jkLrk [kljk uEcj 463] [kljk uEcj 466 o 467 esa nf”kZr jkLrs ls fdlh Hkh izdkj ls tqM+k gqvk ugha gSA oknhx.k dh [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe;ksa ds ykHkizn mi;ksx ds fy, fookfnr jkLrk gh ,dek= jkLrk gSA tks vukfndky ls dkLrdkjksa ds }kjk mi;ksx esa fn;k tkrk jgk gSA”

¶56

In view of the specific findings of both the Courts below as above, this Court is of the clear opinion that the findings as reached by the Courts does not deserve any interference, firstly, for the said findings being factual in nature, secondly, they being the concurrent findings of the facts and thirdly, learned counsel for the appellants, even before this Court, failed to establish that there was any other alternate way available to the plaintiffs to have access to their fields/houses.

¶57

In view of above observation and analysis, no substantial question of law arise in the present appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed .

¶58

The stay petition also stands dismissed.

¶59

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶60

162-Vij/-

Lrs of Bhawani Singh v. Karan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lrs of Bhawani Singh v. Karan Singh

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

Gomati Devi Vs the Commissioner

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs Sohani

Mohammad Saud Vs Dalle Khan