Dismissed

Mamraj v. Tikuram

Rajasthan HC25 May 2023CSA/86/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal regarding a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, the High Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal due to the plaintiff's failure to lead documentary evidence proving possession. The land was identified as Gram Panchayat property, and since the Panchayat was not impleaded, no relief could be granted.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal, stay petition, and all pending applications were dismissed.

Mamraj Vs Tikuram — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/017240]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 86/2023

¶4

Mamraj S/o Kesaram, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Sonadi, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Tikuram S/o Shri Shyokaran, Resident Of Sonadi, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶8

1. Mahendra S/o Shri Shyokaran, Resident Of Sonadi, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶9

1. Hanuman S/o Shri Mahendra, Resident Of Sonadi, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag

¶12

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶13

Order

¶14

25/05/2023

¶15

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 06.05.2023 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Civil Appeal No.04/2020 whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Civil Suit No.97/2012 (CIS No.698/2014) dismissing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction as preferred by the plaintiff, has been affirmed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Courts below erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff despite the specific admission of defendant No.2 himself that the plaintiff was in possession of the property. The Commissioner Report also

(2 of 2)

[2023/RJJD/017240]

[CSA-86/2023]

fortified the fact of his possession and therefore, the defendants deserved to be restrained from interfering with his possession and his right to the common way.

¶21

Heard.

¶22

A perusal of the judgments passed by the learned trial Court as well as the first appellate Court makes it clear that the plaintiff did not lead any documentary evidence regarding his possession and therefore, the courts below decided against him.

¶23

Both the courts below reached to the specific conclusion that the defendants as well as the plaintiff alleged each other to be the encroacher but failed to substantiate their case by any documentary evidence which could prove the possession of either of them.

¶24

Further, the Courts specifically reached to the conclusion that the land was of the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat being not impleaded, no relief qua the land claimed to be the land of common way, could be granted in favour of the plaintiff.

¶25

The findings as arrived by the Courts being totally in consonance with the material available on record as well as the settled proposition of law, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶26

No substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed .

¶27

The stay petition and all pending applications also stand dismissed.

¶28

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶29

176-KashishS/-

Mamraj v. Tikuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamraj v. Tikuram

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

Kalwant Singh @ Kaka Vs Gurdev Singh and Anr.

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Leela Bai

Kishan Gopal Vs Dharmchand

Lrs of Sagarmal Vs Municipal Council, Bikaner

Prem Singh Vs Lrs of Jethu Singh

Moiz Vs Lrs of Raman Lal