A second appeal challenging the dismissal of a possession suit claiming encroachment. The High Court found no substantial question of law as the findings were concurrent and reasonable.
Second Appeal dismissed; miscellaneous application disposed of.
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.
[2024:RJ-JP:26515]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 17/2024
1/2. Mranal Pareek S/o Late Mohanlal Pareek, R/o 5, Teachers Colony Gumanpura, Kota.
----Appellants
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sharda Gurjar For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
06/03/2024
[2024:RJ-JP:26515]
[CSA-17/2024]
(2 of 5)
grounds on which this appeal is preferred which gives rise to certain question of law as mentioned in memo of appeal therefore this appeal requires consideration by this Hon’ble Court. She 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 on substantial question of law as raised by the appellant.
[2024:RJ-JP:26515]
[CSA-17/2024]
(3 of 5)
of encroachment on 10x55 sq. feet by defendants was not established. After dismissal of civil suit, the plaintiff has filed appeal before the appellate court and same was dismissed by the first appellate court. Therefore, the conclusion of facts drawn by Trial Court, were affirmed by the First Appellate Court.
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
(4 of 5)
[2024:RJ-JP:26515]
[CSA-17/2024]
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 mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law."
“a) The purpose of framing of substantial question of law is to give the parties an opportunity to come prepared on that particular question.
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.”
Online (SC) 1273 (decided on 22.09.2022) has summarised
principle relating to Section 100 of CPC in following words:-
“(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.”
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
(5 of 5)
[2024:RJ-JP:26515]
[CSA-17/2024]
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 question of law”. In other words, the existence of such a question is sine qua non for exercise of this jurisdiction.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
PREETI VALECHA /44
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a substantial question of law arises to merit interference in a second appeal where findings of fact are concurrent.
Whether the lower courts committed serious error in concluding there was no encroachment on the plaintiff's land.
Whether the Evidence Appellate Court is bound by the concurrent findings of fact when no perverse view is drawn.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons. Ltd. Vs. Century Spg. and Mgf. Co. Ltd.Applied¶30
Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons. Ltd. Vs. Century Spg. and Mgf. Co. Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314 · Who else cites this
Amar Singh Vs. Dalip SinghApplied¶36
Amar Singh Vs. Dalip Singh (2012) 13 SCC 405 · Who else cites this
Chandrabhan Vs. SaraswatiExplained¶40
Chandrabhan Vs. Saraswati 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1273 · Who else cites this
Suresh Lataruji Ramteke versus Sau. Sumabai Pandurang Petkar & Ors.Explained¶44
Suresh Lataruji Ramteke versus Sau. Sumabai Pandurang Petkar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6070/2023)
Sandeep Pareek and Ors.
State Of Rajasthan and Ors.
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
