Dismissed

Kaluram v. Mangilal

Rajasthan HC19 Jul 2023CSA/61/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal concerning a suit for permanent injunction regarding land possession, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The court upheld the lower courts' findings that the plaintiff's claimed measurements differed from those in his regularization application and Patwari report, finding no substantial question of law. The appeal and stay application were both dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal and the stay application were both dismissed.

Kaluram Vs Mangilal — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:22319]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 61/2021

¶4

Kaluram S/o Prabhu, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Rajendra Nagar, Tehsil Jalore, District Jalore, Rajasthan

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mangilal S/o Shri Dana, aged about 61 years, R/o Rajendra Nagar, Tehsil Jalore, District Jalore, Rajasthan

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)	: --

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶11

Judgment

¶12

19/07/2023

¶13

The present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2021 passed by the District Judge, Jalore in Civil Appeal No.19/2019 (CIS No.19/2019) whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2019 as passed by the Senior Civil Judge No.1, Jalore in Civil Suit No.6/2016 (65/2005) (CIS No.110/2014) has been affirmed. 2. Vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.05.2019, the learned Trial Court proceeded on to partially decree the suit for permanent injunction as preferred by the plaintiff Kaluram. Vide the said decree, the defendant Mangilal has been restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in the areas as specified in the decree.

¶14

The dispute in the present matter was regarding the area marked 'ABCD' which the plaintiff claimed to be of his possession and prayed for an injunction qua the defendant. The learned Trial

[2023:RJ-JD:22319]

[CSA-61/2021]

(2 of 3)

Court while relying upon the application (Ex.A2) preferred by the brother of the plaintiff before the Municipal Authority for regularisation of the possession specifically found that in the said application, the area which was prescribed in possession of the plaintiff was 100 ft. (AB), 106.5 ft. (CD), 31 ft. (the east wall) and 61 ft. (the west wall) whereas in the present suit, the plaintiff claimed his possession on 105 ft. (AB), 116 ft. (CD), 31 ft. (east wall) and 61 ft. (west wall). The Court specifically reached to the conclusion that the area/measurements on which the plaintiff claimed his possession in the present suit were totally different from those mentioned in the application for regularisation preferred before the Municipal Authority.

¶19

Further, the Court also relied upon the report of the Patwari wherein also the measurements of the land in possession of the plaintiff were akin to those which were mentioned in the application filed before the Municipal Authority, meaning thereby, the measurements in both these documents were the same but were different from the measurements as alleged by the plaintiff in the present suit. 5. Therefore, the learned Trial Court, while concluding the plaintiff to be in possession of the area as mentioned above, partially decreed the suit to that extent and specifically decided against the plaintiff qua the remaining portion of land. The learned Trial Court also relied upon the judgment passed in the criminal proceedings between the parties wherein the defendants were acquitted of the offences as alleged against them qua illegal interference in possession of the plaintiff.

[2023:RJ-JD:22319]

[CSA-61/2021]

(3 of 3)

It is clear on record that the brother of the plaintiff himself applied for regularisation before the Municipal Authority specifying the measurements of the land in question similar to that which has been partially decreed by the Court. In the specific opinion of this Court, all the findings as arrived to by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the first Appellate Court, are totally factual in nature and further, are totally in consonance with the material available on record.

¶24

In view of the specific factual and concurrent findings arrived by both the learned Courts below, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed .

¶25

The stay application also stands dismissed.

¶26

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶27

597-Sachin/-

Kaluram v. Mangilal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaluram v. Mangilal

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

Shivlal Vs Piraram and Ors.

Shambhu Singh Khetasar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gajendra Singh Vs Bhanwarlal

Mohan Lal Vs Sukhpal

Chunni Lal Vs Tiwari Dadhich Sampati Trust and Ors.

Kanti Lal Vs Govind Ram