Second appeal concerning a suit for possession of agricultural land dismissed by both lower courts. The High Court found concurrent findings soundly based on evidence, no substantial question of law arose, and dismissed the appeal at the admission stage.
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:38457]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 517/2018
----Appellants
Versus
Madan Lal S/o Kanhaiya, By Caste Dhimar, R/o Binarayan Gate, Bharatpur Presently Class Iv Empolyee Tehsil Office Weir, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Jh ujs'k dqekj fla?ky For Respondent(s) : Jh lat; 'kekZ
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order
09-09-2024
1- [email protected] dh vksj ls ;g flfoy f}rh; vihy vUrxZr /kkjk&100 lh-ih-lh- U;k;ky; vfrfjDr ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&3] Hkjriqj] jktLFkku ¼ftls bl fu.kZ; esa vkxs vihyh; U;k;ky; lacksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ }kjk nhokuh fu;fer vihy la[;k 244@2016 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 25-07-2018 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh xbZ gSa ftlds }kjk vihyh; U;k;ky; us U;k;ky; vfrfjDr ofj"B flfoy U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&1] Hkjriqj] jktLFkku ¼ftls bl fu.kZ; esa vkxs fopkj.k U;k;ky; lacksf/kr fd;k tkosxk½ }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k&183@2013 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh fnukad 24-02-2015] ftlds }kjk oknhx.k dk okn ckcr gqDe bErukbZ n~okeh fujLr fd;k x;k Fkk] dh iqf"V djrs gq, vihykFkhZx.k dh vihy fujLr dh gSA lqfo/kk dh n`f"V ls bl vihy esa vkxs vihykFkhZx.k dks oknhx.k o izR;FkhZ dks izfroknh ls lEcksf/kr fd;k tkosxkA
(2 of 5)
[2024:RJ-JP:38457]
[CSA-517/2018]
2- izdj.k ds laf{kIr rF; bl izdkj of.kZr fd, tk ldrs gSa oknhx.k }kjk okn izLrqr dj okn i= dh pj.k la[;k&2 o 3 esa of.kZr laifRr o fufeZr rkehjkr ij egkohjnkl ds lsod ds :i esa Lo;a dh djhc lkS lky ls fjgk;'k gksuk crkrs gq, mDr laifRr dk mi;ksx miHkksx fd;k tkuk vfHkfyf[kr fd;k rFkk oknhx.k dks mDr laifRr ls csn[ky ugha djus o muds mi;skx o miHkksx esa ck/kk ugha igqpkus ckcr~ izfroknh ds fo:) LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vuqrks"k pkgk x;k A
3- okni= dk fojks/k djrs gq, izfroknh }kjk tokcnkok izLrqr dj Lo;a dks oknxzLr laifRr dk fjdkWMsZM dk'rdkj gksuk] oknhx.k }kjk mDr laifRr ij vukf/kdkj rjhds ls dCtk fd;k tkuk rFkk oknhx.k }kjk ,-lh-,e Hkjriqj esa eqdnek muokuh enuyky cuke fouksn esa jkthukek rLnhd dj LosPNk dCtk gVkus gsrq vkc) fd;k tkuk vfHkfyf[kr djrs gq, okn fujLr djus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ A
4- ^^fopkj.k U;k;ky;^^ us vko';d fook+|d fojfpr djus ds ckn nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; ys[kc) dh o mlds ckn nksuksa i{kksa dks lqudj vius fu.kZ; o fMdzh fnukad 24-02-2015 }kjk oknhx.k dk okn fo:) izfroknh fujLr fd;k x;k ftlds fo:) oknhx.k }kjk izLrqr dh xbZ izFke vihy dks ^^vihyh; U;k;ky;^^ }kjk vius fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukad 25-07-2018 }kjk fujLr djrs gq, fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh iqf"V dh xbZ ftlds fo:) ;g f}rh; vihy izLrqr dh xbZ gS A
5- vihy ij cgl djrs gq, ;ksX; vf/koDrk [email protected] dk rdZ gS fd nksuksa v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk oknhx.k ds fo:) ikfjr fu.kZ; o fMfdz;ka i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh ds foijhr o izfrdwy gSa A nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; dk lgh ewY;kadu ugha fd;k gS o egRoiw.kZ lk{; dks utjvankt fd;k gS A mudk rdZ gS fd ekSdk deh'uj fjiksVZ o jsoU;w fjdksMZ ls oknxzLr laifRr ij oknhx.k dk dCtk gksuk lkfcr Fkk] oknhx.k dk izfroknh ls fdlh izdkj dk jkthukek ugha gqvk Fkk] oknhx.k }kjk lk{; ds leFkZu esa Bksl izys[kh; lk{; Hkh izLrqr dh xbZ Fkh] ftu ij nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk lgh :i ls fopkj ugha fd;k x;k gS A oknhx.k ds fo:) fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh
[2024:RJ-JP:38457]
[CSA-517/2018]
(3 of 5)
ikfjr dj nksuks gh U;k;ky;ksa us =qfV dkfjr dh gSA vr% ;g vihy] vihy Kkiu esa mBk, x, fof/k ds lkjHkwr iz'uksa ij fopkjkFkZ xzg.k dh tkos A 6- blds foijhr ;ksX; vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ@izfroknh dk vihy ij cgl djrs gq, rdZ jgk gS fd nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr lk{; dk lgh ewY;kadu djrs gq, oknhx.k dk okn ,oa vihy fujLr dh xbZ gS A vr% gLrxr f}rh; vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u vUrfuZfgr ugha gS blfy, ;g vihy xzg.kkFkZ ds Lrj ij gh fujLr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSaA 7- geusa nksuksa i{kksa ds ;ksX; vf/koDrkx.k }kjk j[ks x, rdksZ ij fopkj fd;k o miyC/k vfHkys[k dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu o ifj'khyu fd;k x;kA gLrxr f}rh; flfoy vihy dh xzkg~;rk ds izdze ij ;g fopkj.kh; fcUnq mRiUu gksrk gS fd D;k bl f}rh; flfoy vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u vUrfuZfgr gS vFkok ugha \ 8- vfHkys[k ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd fook|d la[;k&1 dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj oknhx.k ij Fkk A oknhx.k fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k viuh ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; ls ;g izekf.kr djus esa vlQy jgs gaS fd oknhx.k fookfnr laifRr ij dkfct gksaA tcfd fook|d la[;k 2 izfroknh ds fo:) o fook|d la[;k&3 izfroknh ds i{k esa fu.khZr fd, x, gSa A vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh vihy esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds mDr fu"d"kksZ dh laiqf"V djrs gq, oknh dh vihy fujLr dh gS A
9- nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us izdj.k ds rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa] Lohdfr ,oa fof/k dk lgh izdkj ls foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k dj oknhx.k dk okn fujLr fd;k gS A f}rh; vihy esa lk{; dks foLrr :i ls iqu% foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k dh Hkh vko';drk ugha gS A bl laca/k esa bl U;k;ky; ds led{k ihB }kjk S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.01/2011: Surendra Kumar Jaggi Versus Ahmed Farooq and Ors . esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 23-08-2012 ds iSjk la[;k 14 esa fuEufyf[kr er O;Dr fd;k x;k gS%&
"14. It is well settled that evidence on record can not be reappreciated in second appeal under Section 100CPC like it
(4 of 5)
[2024:RJ-JP:38457]
[CSA-517/2018]
could be done in first appeal under Section96 CPC and such second appeal would lie only if substantial question of law, as defined in various case laws, arises in the matter. Nothing of this sort is found in the present case."
10nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us oknhx.k dk okn fujLr djus ds laca/k esa vfHkys[k ij miyC/k rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa Lohdfr dh vuns[kh dh gks ;k tks rF; vfHkys[k ij miyC/k ugha gS] ml ij fopkj fd;k gks ;k lkfcr rF;ksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ xyr bUQsjsUl gks] ,slk nf"Vxr ugha gksrk gSA oknhx.k dk okn fujLr fd, tkus ds laca/k esa nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa ds leorhZ rF;kRed fu"d"kZ gaS blfy, mijksDr fu.kZ;ksa esa gLr{ksi fd, tkus ds dksbZ fof/klEer vk/kkj ugha gS A bl laca/k esa AIR 2008SC 380 Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus ArigelaLaxmi and Ors. ds iSjk la[;k 13 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %&
"13.The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below.But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (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. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding."
11- AIR 2001 SC 965 Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwai (Dead) by L.Rs esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %&
"12. The phrase 'substantial question of law', asoccurring in the amended Section 100 is not definedin the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying' question of law',
(5 of 5)
[2024:RJ-JP:38457]
[CSA-517/2018]
means – of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with – technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the Legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of substantial question of law by suffixing the words 'of general importance' as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1) (a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta & Anr. Vs. T. Ram Ditta, AIR 1928 Privy Council 172,the phrase 'substantial question of law' as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 110 of the C.P.C. (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and Their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case as between the parties. ..."
12mYys[kuh; gS fd nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk oknhx.k dk okn fujLr fd, tkus ds laca/k esa vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh ij vk/kkfjr gSa vkSj bl laca/k esa nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr lk{; dk lgh ewY;kadu o fo'ys"k.k fd;k gSA
vr% nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk mDr lEcU/k esa vfHkfyf[kr leorhZ rF;kRed fu"d"kksZa esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ =qfV vFkok izfrdwyrk ugha gksus ls o bl f}rh; vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ iz'u vFkok fof/k dk dksbZ lkjHkwr iz'u ugha gksus ls ;g f}rh; vihy xzg.kkFkZ Lrj ij gh fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS] tks ,rn~}kjk fujLr dh tkrh gSA
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J
Rishikesh Soni/74
1 issue framed by the court
Whether any substantial question of law arises justifying interference with the concurrent findings of the two lower courts dismissing the plaintiffs' suit over possession of the disputed property.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surendra Kumar Jaggi Versus Ahmed Farooq and OrsReferred¶9
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.01/2011: Surendra Kumar Jaggi Versus Ahmed Farooq and Ors
Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus ArigelaLaxmi and Ors.Relied on¶10
AIR 2008 SC 380 Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus ArigelaLaxmi and Ors. · Who else cites this
Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwai (Dead) by L.RsRelied on¶11
AIR 2001 SC 965 Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwai (Dead) by L.Rs · Who else cites this
Mahaveer
Vijay
Madan Lal
Vinod Kumar Bharwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
