Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Of Surajmal @ Markar And Ors vs Lrs Of Narbada Devi (2025:Rj-Jd:43095) on 19 September, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:43095]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 134/2018
1. Smt. Rama Devi W/o Shri Surajmal, B/c Rajput, R/o
Mehro Ka Bas,
2. Rameshwar Singh S/o Late Shri Surajmal, B/c Rajput, R/o
Koriyo Ka Mohalla, Bikaner.
3. Lrs Of Govind Singh, Late Shri Surajmal
4. Smt. Kaushalya Devi Spouse/o Late Shri Govind Singh, B/
c Rajput,
5. Anand Singh S/o Late Shri Govind Singh, B/c Rajput,
6. Sanyog Singh S/o Late Shri Govind Singh, B/c Rajput,
Respondent No. 3/1 To 3/3 Are R/o Mehro Ka Bas,
Bikaner.
7. Smt. Smt. Usha Spouse/o Shri Keshri Singh, B/c Rajput,
R/o Indira Colony, Near Fci Godwan,
8. Smt. Saroj Spouse/o Shri Lal Singh,, B/c Rajput, R/o Near
Mataji Temple,
----Appellants
Versus
1. Preetam Singh S/o Shri Kedarnath Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o
Rawato Ka Mohalla, Bikaner.
2. Anuradha Spouse/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, B/c Rajput, R/o
Rawato Ka Mohalla, Bikaner.
3. Braj Mohan S/o Shri Jugal Kishore, B/c Rajput, R/o
Rawato Ka Mohalla, Bikaner.
4. Tej Karan S/o Shri Jugal Kishore, B/c Rajput, R/o Rawato
Ka Mohalla, Bikaner.
5. Satya Narayan S/o Shri Jugal Kishore, B/c Rajput, R/o
Rawato Ka Mohalla, Bikaner.
6. Jogendra Singh S/o Late Shri Kedar Singh, B/c Rajput, R/
o Rawato Ka Mohalla, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. Jay Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : -
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 03:08:32 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/09/2025 at 12:16:20 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:43095] (2 of 5) [CSA-134/2018]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 19/09/2025
1. The present second appeal, preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assails the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2018, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Bikaner in Civil Appeal No. 37/2012 (CF No. 230/14), whereby the learned First Appellate Court modified and partly reversed the judgment and preliminary decree dated 12.11.2002 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Bikaner, in a suit for partition filed by Late Shri Jugal Kishore, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein.
2. The core grievance of the appellant before this Court is that the learned First Appellate Court erred in reversing the limited finding of the Trial Court, which had directed adjustment of a sum of Rs. 32,000/- allegedly expended by the appellant towards construction at the time of preparation of the final decree. It is contended that such reversal is perverse, contrary to record, and that the concurrent findings regarding partition, limitation, adverse possession, and other issues are liable to be revisited by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the property in question, situated at Mehran Mohalla, Bikaner, was constructed on a plot originally allotted to Late Shri Moolji, the father of both the appellant and Late Shri Jugal Kishore, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for partition, claiming a 50% share in the said property on the basis (Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 03:08:32 PM) (Downloaded on 27/09/2025 at 12:16:20 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:43095] (3 of 5) [CSA-134/2018] of joint ownership. The appellant, in his written statement, contested the suit on various grounds including exclusive possession, investment of substantial amounts towards construction, alleged relinquishment of rights by the plaintiff prior to 1961, and acquisition of ownership through adverse possession. 3.1. The learned Trial Court framed eight issues, examined oral and documentary evidence, and passed a preliminary decree holding both parties entitled to 50% share each. The Trial Court further noted that the appellant had spent Rs. 32,000/- on construction and directed that the said amount be adjusted at the stage of preparation of the final decree. However, the learned First Appellate Court, while affirming the findings regarding partition, limitation, and adverse possession, reversed the direction regarding adjustment of Rs. 32,000/-, holding that mere expenditure without legal entitlement or exclusive ownership does not warrant such adjustment in a partition suit.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and minutely gone through the impugned orders as well as the material made available on record.
4.1. At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 CPC is narrow and limited. This Court does not sit in appeal over concurrent factual findings unless a substantial question of law arises which goes to the root of the matter. The term "substantial question of law" must be understood in contradistinction to mere questions of fact or questions of law already well-settled by precedent. A second appeal is not a forum (Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 03:08:32 PM) (Downloaded on 27/09/2025 at 12:16:20 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:43095] (4 of 5) [CSA-134/2018] for reappreciation of evidence or to substitute factual findings merely because another view is possible.
4.2. Upon careful scrutiny of the judgments rendered by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, it is evident that the findings on core issues such as title, possession, limitation, and adverse possession are concurrent and based on a meticulous appreciation of evidence. Both courts below held that the property was ancestral, allotted to Late Shri Moolji; that there was no valid proof of relinquishment by the plaintiff; that the appellant had failed to establish the legal requisites of adverse possession; and that the suit was filed within the period of limitation. The direction of the Trial Court to adjust Rs. 32,000/- towards construction was rightly reversed by the First Appellate Court, which found that mere expenditure, without legal ownership or entitlement, did not create any right to reimbursement in a suit for partition. 4.3. The principal issue raised in this second appeal namely, whether the appellant is entitled to adjustment of construction costs relates entirely to appreciation of evidence and exercise of equitable discretion, both of which lie within the exclusive domain of the fact-finding courts. No legal error, much less a substantial question of law, is discernible from the record. 4.4. The contentions regarding adverse possession, limitation, and relinquishment have been thoroughly addressed and adjudicated by both courts below in a consistent and cogent manner. There is no perversity, misapplication of law, or disregard of settled legal principles in the conclusions drawn.
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 03:08:32 PM) (Downloaded on 27/09/2025 at 12:16:20 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:43095] (5 of 5) [CSA-134/2018] 4.5. This Court is not functioning as a first appellate authority. It is well-settled law that in a second appeal, re-examination of evidence or re-evaluation of factual findings is impermissible, unless it is demonstrated that such findings are so outrageously perverse or shocking to judicial conscience which is not the case herein.
4.6. The plea of the appellant that both courts misinterpreted the legal consequences of long-standing possession, or failed to consider the total construction expenditure of Rs. 1,27,437/-, is merely an attempt to reopen factual controversies, which is not permissible under the statutory scheme of Section 100 CPC.
5. In light of the above discussion, this Court finds that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present second appeal. The findings rendered by both the learned courts below are well-founded, legally sound, and supported by the evidence on record. No interference is warranted.
6. The second appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine, being bereft of any substantial question of law. The judgment and decree dated 17.02.2018 passed by the learned First Appellate Court is upheld. The stay petition and all pending applications stand disposed of. No costs.
(FARJAND ALI),J 9-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 26/09/2025 at 03:08:32 PM) (Downloaded on 27/09/2025 at 12:16:20 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)