Dismissed

Shankar Lal S/O Dev Lal v. Sujan Singh S/O Shri Ramnarayan

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2024CSA/151/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal against concurrent findings decreeing plaintiff's suit for perpetual injunction over a pathway claimed as government land. Court applied the test for substantial question of law, found none arose since defendants led no evidence to contradict the plaintiff's claim, and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shankar Lal S/O Dev Lal Vs Sujan Singh S/O Shri… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:26626]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 151/2021

¶4

Shankar Lal S/o Dev Lal, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Dhanoda, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶5

Gauri Lal S/o Shankarlal, Village Dhanoda, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Sujan Singh S/o Shri Ramnarayan, R/o Village Dhanoda, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Amit Dadhich
For Respondent(s)	: None

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶12

Order

¶13

07/03/2024

¶14

Instant second appeal is preferred by appellant, aggrieved from judgment dated 19.07.2021 in civil regular appeal No. 14/2020 passed by learned District Judge, Jhalawar wherein appeal preferred under Section 96 of CPC aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 30.01.2018 in civil suit No. 49/2015 was dismissed.

¶15

Learned counsel for appellant while relying upon grounds of appeal would submitted that learned appellate court has committed serious error while considering the appeal preferred from judgment and decree passed by the trial court. He raised specific grounds and submitted that there are considerable grounds on which this appeal is preferred which gives rise to

[2024:RJ-JP:26626]

[CSA-151/2021]

(2 of 5)

substantial question of law as mentioned in memo of appeal therefore this appeal requires consideration by this Hon’ble Court. He also submitted that the appellate court has committed grave error in arriving at a conclusion prejudicial to the interest of present appellant and the findings are contrary to the settled proposition of law thus the instant second appeal is liable to be admitted.

¶20

Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit without any right or authority claiming the land of defendant as government land and the trial court without verification has drawn a wrong conclusion that the land is a government land and defendant appellant has no right. He also submitted that neither the Panchayat nor government authority was made party to the proceedings and without any cogent evidence the judgment was passed in favour of plaintiff.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the record. 5. The facts giving rise to instant second appeal are that the respondent plaintiff has filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the appellant defendant claiming that the defendants are encroaching upon the government land used as pathway by the plaintiff. The defendant has denied this claim but stated that they had constructed temporary shade and plaintiff want to create a new way on side of defendant. The trial court has framed five issues. The plaintiff has examined two witnesses and exhibited 5 documents but no evidence was produced by the defendant.

¶22

Learned trial court after considering the material on record has decided issue No.1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff and issue Nos.3 and 4 against defendant, as a result of which, the suit of plaintiff

[2024:RJ-JP:26626]

[CSA-151/2021]

(3 of 5)

was decreed against the appellant defendants. The trial court has restrained and directed the defendants not to obstruct on government land used for pathway. Aggrieved from aforesaid first appeal was preferred by defendants and same was dismissed by the appellate court.

¶27

A perusal of entire material on record indicated that defendant had failed to led evidence before the trial court so as to contradict the claim of the respondent plaintiff. Herein the plaintiff had submitted certain documents on the basis of which the trial court has drawn conclusion in favour of respondent plaintiff. In absence of any evidence, the claim of plaintiff was not contradicted before the trial court.

¶28

Having considered the material available on record, no substantial question arises from the grounds raised by appellant plaintiff. There is concurrent findings of facts by the Court below and first appellate court is final court on facts.

¶29

In order to determine the substantial question of law we have to consider the test laid down by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons. Ltd. Vs. Century Spg. and Mgf. Co. Ltd . AIR 1962 SC 1314 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed has observed as under:

¶30

"The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a

(4 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JP:26626]

[CSA-151/2021]

mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law."

¶35

In case of Amar Singh Vs. Dalip Singh (2012) 13 SCC 405 , Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the purpose of framing

¶36

question of law in following manner:

¶37

“a) The purpose of framing of substantial question of law is to give the parties an opportunity to come prepared on that particular question.

¶38

b) When a substantial question of law is formulated by the Court then the same must be made known to parties and thereafter they have to be given an opportunity to advanced arguments thereon. c) If any additional questions were framed at the time of hearing, the Court must hear the parties on that question as well.”

¶39

Hon’ble Court in case of Chandrabhan Vs. Saraswati 2022 SCC

¶40

Online (SC) 1273 (decided on 22.09.2022) has summarised

¶41

principle relating to Section 100 of CPC in following words:-

¶42

“(i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof.”

¶43

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Suresh Lataruji Ramteke versus Sau. Sumabai Pandurang Petkar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6070/2023, arising out of SLP(C)No.20183 of 2022 decided on 21.09.2023) referred to the judgments and observed that the general rule is that the High Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below but same is not an absolute rule. The requirement, most fundamental under this section is the presence and framing of a “substantial

[2024:RJ-JP:26626]

[CSA-151/2021]

(5 of 5)

question of law”. In other words, the existence of such a question is sine qua non for exercise of this jurisdiction.

¶48

Herein, we do not find anything wrong in the judgment of the first appellate court in an appeal under Section 96 of CPC. The appellants herein have challenged the judgment of first appellate court under Section 100 of CPC and there are no grounds on which we can conclude that the trial court or the first appellate court has committed serious error while adjudicating the issue on hand.

¶49

Hence, no substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the instant appeal.

¶50

In view of aforesaid, the instant S.B. Second Appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶51

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶52

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶53

PREETI VALECHA/19

Shankar Lal S/O Dev Lal v. Sujan Singh S/O Shri Ramnarayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shankar Lal S/O Dev Lal v. Sujan Singh S/O Shri Ramnarayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Hema Daughter of Shri Gopaldas Moolchandani, Vs Maanmal Lodha Son of Shri Gumanmal Lodha

Gajendra Kumar @ Gajanand Son of Sh. Sohanlal Verma, Vs Shyamlal Son of Late Sh. Jhandu Singh Jha

Ramswarup Sain S/O Shri Chhotu Lal Sain Vs Satyanarayan Sain S/O Late Chotulal Sain

Kailash Chand Gurawa S/O Late Shri Balu Ji Vs Smt. Tara Devi W/O Late Shri Munna Lal Ji (Deceased)

Srimati Kali Devi D/O Ramphool, Vs Ramkaran Meena S/O Kalayan Meena

Smt. Parwati Widow of Shri Choba (Now Deceased) Vs Ramesh Chand S/O Late Shri Babulal