Phoolchand Sain Son of Late Shri Gyarsilal Sain Vs Alisher Son of Shri Deena

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.01.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Paota, District Kotputli-Behror, whereby the objection filed by the petitioner against the Commissioner’s report dated 29.04.2023 has been rejected.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Commissioner’s report does not conform to the actual site position. He further submits that, in his suit, the house of Alisher is in line with the houses of Gaffur and Samasrudin and does not

¶22

[2026:RJ-JP:10865]

¶23

[CW-4110/2026]

¶24

(2 of 3)

¶25

extend toward the chowk of the petitioner. However, the Commissioner’s report shows the house of Alisher from B to B1 as being on the way, which, according to the petitioner, is incorrect.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the report is contrary to the site, specifically stating that the length from J to K has been recorded as 105 feet, which is inaccurate. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-5, the earlier Commissioner’s report, wherein the houses of Gaffur, Amin, and Alisher were shown in one line. He submits that the learned Trial Court committed illegality in rejecting his objection.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Commissioner, in his report, has indicated particular parts of the disputed property as belonging either to the plaintiff or the defendant, which, according to the petitioner, was beyond the Commissioner’s authority.

¶28

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Commissioner has not recorded J to K as 105 feet; rather, the length from K to P is 105 feet, as shown by a dotted line in the report. He further submits that the Commissioner has prepared a report reflecting the existing site conditions, noting ongoing construction in the house of Alisher.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that the earlier report cannot be a ground to challenge the present Commissioner’s report, as the Commissioner was duty-bound to report the actual status of the site as on the date of inspection. Accordingly, he submits that the learned Trial Court has committed

[2026:RJ-JP:10865]

[CW-4110/2026]

(3 of 3)

no illegality and the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the material on record.

¶35

This Court finds that the petitioner’s apprehension regarding J to K being shown as 105 feet is misconceived, as the respondent admits that the total length from A to P is 105 feet. The objection regarding the houses of Gaffur, Amin, and Alisher being shown in one line cannot be sustained, as the Commissioner was required to prepare a report reflecting the site as it existed on the date of inspection. It is also noted that the plaintiff’s map does not indicate any measurements of the area in dispute, the chowk, or the defendant’s house.

¶36

Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner regarding length and breadth is baseless. However, as regards the observation in the Commissioner’s report identifying particular property as belonging to either the plaintiff or the defendant, it is clarified that such a report cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of possession. The question of possession must be decided by the learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties during the trial.

¶37

With the above observations, the present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶38

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶39

(BIPIN GUPTA),J

¶40

MAHIMA/9

Phoolchand Sain Son of Late Shri Gyarsilal Sain v. Alisher Son of Shri Deena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phoolchand Sain Son of Late Shri Gyarsilal Sain v. Alisher Son of Shri Deena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Devnani S/O Late Shri Madharam Devnani, Vs Smt. Lata Devnani Widow of Late Shri Bhagwandas Devnani

Mirza Abdul Kadir, Son of Late Shri Mirza Gani Beg Vs Kumari Abida, Daughter of Late Shri Mohammed Saddik

Smt. Premlata Goyal W/O Shri Late Murarilal Goyal Vs Shri Prabhudayal Saini S/O Shri Isarram Saini

Kailash Chand Mehta Son of Shri Ramnarayan Ji Mehta Vs Miss Pakhi Tyagi Daughter of Late Shri Ankush Tyagi

Om Prakash Vs Lalit Kumar Son of Sharvan Kumar Agarwal (Babai Wale)

Sharwan Singh Rathore S/O Late Shri Jawahar Singh Rathore Vs Shankar Vaishnav S/O Shri Aturam Vaishnav