Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vishesh Korwani vs Rajendra Kumar Sharma And Another on 10 May, 2022
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 34/2016
माननीय राजस्ान उचच्च नयायालय, जयपुर पीठ, जयपुर ।
एकल पीठ सिसिल स्वितीय अपील ि संखया: 34/16
1. सिशेष कोरिानी पुत्र शी तोलाराम कोरिानी, आयु 39 िष्, सनिािी- पलाट नमम्बर 3,
गुरूनानक नगर, ब्रहमपुरी, जयपुर ।
..अपीला््थी / िादी
म्बनाम
1. राजेन्द्र कुमार शमा् पुत्र शी कश्री कलयाण जी ज्याण जी जौशी, सनिािी कश्री कलयाण पॉिती िदन, राधा
गोसिनद नसि्ग हॉम के पाि, ब्रहमपुरी, जयपुर ।
..रे सपोडेनट / प्रसतिादी क्रम-1
2. प्रकाश गोलानी पुत्र शी भगिान दाि गोलानी, सनिािी मकान नमम्बर 108, क संिर नगर,
च्चा संदी की टकिाल, जयपुर ।
..रे सपोडेनटगण / प्रसतिादी ि संखया 2
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Devi Dutt Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.P. Garg
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Judgment 10/05/2022
1. By way of this second appeal, appellant has invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, to assail the fact findings of the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2015 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No.35/2010 by the Court of Additonal District Judge No.5, Jaiput Metropolitan, Jaipur affirming the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2010 passed in Civil Suit No.451/2002 (212/1998) in case of Prakash (Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 09:16:57 PM) (2 of 5) [CSA-34/2016] Golani & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar Sharma by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby and whereunder the civil suit for possession and permanent injunction has been dismissed.
2. From the record, it appears that the Civil Suit No.451/2002 (212/1998) was instituted by one Mr. Prakash Golani against Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma in relation to the Plot No.4 alloted by the Madhav Nagar Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti, Jaipur. Later on, this plot was purchased by appellant-Vishesh Korwani, who impleaded as plaintiff No.2 in the aforesaid suit. The claim of the plaintiff is that when they measured the area of their plot it was noticed that towards the North side an area of 9X30 feet is less. It was alleged that this area has been taken by the respondent-defendant- Rajendra Kumar Sharma and he has raised contruction of boundary wall to include this area in his plot No.10. A prayer was made that the construction of boundary wall be ordered to be demolished and decree for possession of an area of 9X30 feet be passed in favour of plaintiff.
3. In the aforementioned facts, it is clear that in the present second appeal, the dispute is between two neighbours in relation to the land measuring 9X30 feet. Undisputedly, this land is in possession of the respondent-defendant-Rajendra Kumar Sharma.
4. It appears from the record, that respondent-Rajendra Kumar Sharma has also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction to have a right of opening gate and in counter to that, the present suit for possession was instituted.
5. Both suits were consolidated and tried together and have been decided in common judgment dated 04.10.2010 by the trial court.
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 09:16:57 PM)
(3 of 5) [CSA-34/2016] Before the trial court, both parties have adduced their oral and documentary evidence. It has been concluded on appriciation of evidence that appellant purchased the plot No.4 with an area of 190 sq. yards. As per the report of the Court Commissioner, appellant was found in possession of his purchased area. Accordingly, the trial court as well as the first appellate court, recorded findings of fact that appellant has failed to prove his ownerhsip over the disputed area of 9X30 feet, as such the civil suit for possession was dismissed.
6. Though it is also clear from the record that the civil suit, for permanent injunction filed by respondent-Rajendra Kumar Sharma ,too was dismissed and his claim was also declined, however, he has not challenged the dismissal of his suit before this Court. Hence, this Court is not examining the claim of respondent No.1.
7. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that in relation to the area of 9X30 feet, the title neither vests in plaintiff nor in defendant and such issue could not have been decided in the present suit.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that in view of the concurrent findings of fact, no interference is called for in the impugned judgments by the High Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.
9. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the impugned judgments and record.
10. The present second appeal arises out of the Civil Suit No.451/2002 (212/1998) instituted for the purpose of claiming possession, demolition of construction and permanent injunction in which plaintiff prayed following prayer:-
(Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 09:16:57 PM)
(4 of 5) [CSA-34/2016] अनुतोष:- वाद वादी के ववरुद्ध वनिमन प्रकार वरकार डिर डिकार डिक्री फ़र्री फ़रमाी फ़रमाया रमाया जाकर आदेश पाररत की फ़रमाया रमाया जावे कार डिक्री:-
अ. ी फ़रमायह कार डिक्री रमाया जो वादीगण के भख ू ंरकार डि कार डिक्री ओर उत्तर तरफ प्रवतवादी ी दारा 9X30 फ़ार डिक्रीट भवू ्री फ़रम रमाया जो वाद पत्र के साथ सलगन ननक़शे ्री फ़रमश आरकार डिी डी धाररी फ़रमायधारियों से दशास ी फ़रमाये गी फ़रमायी हे, का कबज़ा वादीगण को वासतववक रूप से प्रवतवादी से वदलाी फ़रमाया रमाया जाी फ़रमाय। ब. ी फ़रमायह कार डिक्री प्रवतवादी के ववरुद्ध इस आशी फ़रमाय कार डिक्री व की चिरसथाी फ़रमायी वनषेनिषेदाषेद्याजा कार डिक्री वरकार डिर डिकार डिक्री प्रदान कार डिक्री रमाया जावे कार डिक्री प्रवतवादी वाद पत्र के साथ सलगन ननक़शे से लाल रंग से दशास ी फ़रमायी गी फ़रमायी भवू ्री फ़रम पर वकसी प्रकार का वन्री फ़रमासण काी फ़रमायस न करे ऐसा प्रवतवादी सवी फ़रमायं अथवा अपने एरमाया जशट, सवर्वेंट, प्रवतवनवडी ध ी फ़रमाया अा अनी फ़रमाय न्य वी फ़रमायव्य व्यक्ति से न कराी फ़रमाये स. ी फ़रमायह कार डिक्री वादीगण प्रवतवादी को इस अ्री फ़रमर कार डिक्री सथाी फ़रमायी वनषेनिषेदाषेद्याजा से पाबंद ू ंरकार डि संंखी फ़रमाया ४ के करने का अवडी धकार हे कार डिक्री प्रवतववडी ध वावडी धघान ी दारा भख वववादगसत 9X30 फ़ार डिक्रीट उत्तर वदशा को छोड़ कर शेष ५७ फ़ार डिक्रीट ३० फ़ार डिक्रीट वहससे ्री फ़रमश कराी फ़रमाये रमाया जाने वाले वन्री फ़रमासण काी फ़रमायस ्री फ़रमश कोई बाडी धा करीत नह नहीं करे , न ही तोड़फोड़ ू ंरकार डि के उपी फ़रमायोग उपभोग से वावडी धघान को वंव की चित करे , न ही वबना करे न ही भख ू ंरकार डि संंखी फ़रमाया ४ ्री फ़रमश प्रवेश करे , ऐसा कतत्ी फ़रमाय प्रवतवादी ना अनु्री फ़रमवत वावडी धगण उ्य व्यक्ति भख तो सवी फ़रमायं करे न ही अपने व्री फ़रमत्र, एरमाया जशट, सवी फ़रमायं कारीगर ी फ़रमाया ्री फ़रमरमाया जदूर से कराी फ़रमाये। द. ी फ़रमायह कार डिक्री ख की चिास ्री फ़रमुकद्री फ़रमा वदलाी फ़रमाया रमाया जाी फ़रमाये। ी फ़रमाय. ी फ़रमायह कार डिक्री अा अनी फ़रमाय कोई अनुतोष रमाया जो वादीगण के हक़ ्री फ़रमम उव की चित हो, प्रदान वकी फ़रमाया रमाया जावे।
11. On perusal of the plaint, it is clear that appellant-plaintiff claimed possession assailing his ownership and title over the area in question and once the plaintiff could not adduce sufficient evidence to prove his ownership, the suit has been dismissed.
12. The fact findings of two courts below are in relation to examine ownership of the plaintiffs over the area in question. Hence, the issue, raised by counsel for appellant at the stage of this second appeal, is not the subject matter of the suit itself. A new question of fact, which does not arise out of the pleadings of parties, may not be entertained at the stage of second appeal. (Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 09:16:57 PM)
(5 of 5) [CSA-34/2016]
13. On perusal of both judgments, it stands clear that both courts have appreciated/re-appreciated the evidence of both parties and there after have passed the findings of fact.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [(1999) 3 SCC 722] and catena of other judgments passed in case of Pakeerappa Rai Vs. Seethamma Hengsu & Ors., [(2001) 9 SCC 521], Thulasidhara & Anr. Vs. Narayanappa & Ors., [(2019) 6 SCC 409], Bholaram Vs. Ameerchand, [(1981) 2 SCC 414], Ishwar Das Jain Vs. Sohan Lal, [(2000) 1 SCC 434] and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sabal Singh & Ors., [(2019) 10 SCC 595], has categorically observed that re-appreciation of evidence by the High Court within scope of Section 100 CPC to draw a different conclusion other than taken by the two Courts below is not permissible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that inadequacy of evidence or different reading of evidence is not a perversity nor any wrong findings of fact by itself constitutes a question of law.
15. As discussion made hereinabove on factual and legal aspect, this Court finds that the present appeal does not involve any question of law much less substantial question of law. In absence of substantial question of law, this second appeal is not liable to be entertained and the same is hereby dismissed.
16. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
17. Record of both the Courts below be sent back forthwith.
18. There is no order as to costs.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J SACHIN/1 (Downloaded on 17/05/2022 at 09:16:57 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)