The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a civil second appeal. Upholding the appellate court's finding that the plaintiff proved ownership and possession through Nagar Palika regularization orders, the bench rejected the claim of infirmity and held no substantial question of law arose.
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/RJJP/006275]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 36/2009
----Appellants-Defendants
Versus
Chidiya Devi W/o Motanath aged about 66 years, R/o Baswa Teh. Baswa Distt. Dausa
----Respondent-Plaintiff
For Appellant(s) : Shri Prakash Jha For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment
10/04/2023
This civil second appeal is preferred against the judgement and decree dated 16.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bandikui District Dausa (for brevity-the learned appellate court’) in civil first appeal no.25/2003 whereby, while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent-plaintiff (for brevity-the plaintiff’), the judgement and decree dated 20.5.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bandikui, District Dausa (for brevity`-the learned trial court’)
(2 of 4)
[2023/RJJP/006275]
[CSA-36/2009]
dismissing the suit no.71/1995 filed for permanent injunction, has been reversed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit against the appellants/defendants (for brevity-`the defendants’) stating therein that a piece of land measuring 20 feet x 15 feet admeasuring 375 sq. ft. as described in para no.1 of the plaint situated in Village Baswa is under her owenrship and possession since the year 1962. It was stated that acknowledging possession of her husband on the subject land, the Gram Panchayat Baswa delivered a judgement in his favour in the year 1968. Thereafter, after site inspection, the Nagar Palika, Baswa passed an order dated 20.2.1989 in her favour for regularisation which on payment of regularisation charges was regularised in her favour. It was averred that the order dated 20.2.1989 was assailed by the respondents by way of a revision petition which came to be dismissed by the Additional District Collector, Dausa after site inspection dated 23.4.1994. Alleging that the defendants were trying to encroach upon the aforesaid piece of land, a decree of permanent injunction was prayed for.
The defendants in their joint written statement denying the averments in the plaint submitted that the subject land was neither under the ownership nor, in possession of the plaintiff; rather, it was under their possession.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed two issues including relief.
After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial court dismissed the suit vide its judgement dated 20.5.2003. The civil first appeal preferred thereagainst has been
(3 of 4)
[2023/RJJP/006275]
[CSA-36/2009]
allowed by the learned appellate court vide its judgement dated 16.10.2008 whereby, the plaintiff has been granted the decree of permanent injunction.
Assailing the judgement and decree dated 16.10.2008, the learned counsel for the appellants would contend that while allowing the appeal, the learned appellate court did not appreciate that the plaintiff could not establish her title and possession over the subject property. He submitted that the learned appellate court has failed to appreciate that the judgment of the Nagar Palika, Baswa and the Additional District Collector, Dausa did not pertain to the subject land. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgement and decree dated 16.10.2008 be quashed and set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.
Heard. Considered.
While allowing the appeal vide its judgement dated 16.10.2008, the learned appellate court has, after appreciating the oral as also the documentary evidence on record, recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiff has been able to establish that she was under ownership and possession of the subject land. Vide its order dated 20.2.1989, the Nagar Palika, Baswa has directed regularisation of the subject plot in favour of the plaintiff on payment of regularisation charges and the revision petition preferred thereagainst by the defendant no.1 came to be dismissed by the Additional District Collector, Dausa vide its judgement dated 5.8.1994. The defendant no.1 Shri Swami Nath, in his cross examination as DW1 has, although, denied that vide order dated 20.2.1989, the Nagar Palika, Baswa directed
(4 of 4)
[2023/RJJP/006275]
[CSA-36/2009]
regularisation of the subject plot in favour of the plaintiff and has stated that in the revision petition preferred thereagainst by him, the Additional District Collector, Dausa vide its order dated 5.8.1994, set aside the order dated 20.2.1989; but, in the same breath, he has admitted that his revision petition against the order dated 20.2.1989 was dismissed by the Additional District Collector and the order dated 20.2.1989 was maintained. He has further admitted that width of the subject property was 25 feet and after leaving the subject plot, there was “burj and government boundary”. The learned appellate court has, while deciding the issue no.1, after examining the contents of the plaint, the Ex.5, Najri Naksha annexed therewith, the four sides and measurement of the subject plot as mentioned in Ex.3, the order dated 20.2.1989 as also appreciating the oral testimony of the witnesses of the respective parties, held that the subject plot has been regularised in favour of the plaintiff and she was under its ownership and possession. Learned counsel for the appellants could not satisfy this Court that the aforesaid findings suffer from any illegality, perversity, or infirmity.
In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned appellate court did not err in allowing the civil first appeal preferred by the plaintiff, reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.5.2003 passed by the learned trial court and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction.
Since, the civil second appeal is devoid of any substantial question of law, the same is dismissed.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
RS/82
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the subordinate courts erred in finding that the plaintiff had established ownership and possession of the disputed land via regularization orders.
Whether the civil second appeal reveals any illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the lower courts' judgment granting permanent injunction.
Whether the appeal is subservient to dismissal in the absence of a substantial question of law.
Samaynath S/o Gendanath and Lrs.
Ram Singh S/o Deceased Samaynath
Rasheed S/o Deceased Samaynath
Pappu S/o Deceased Samaynath
Chidiya Devi W/o Motanath
Mahendar Kumar Goyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
