Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs.Of Mangej Singh vs Devi Lal & Ors on 13 August, 2010
Author: Govind Mathur
Bench: Govind Mathur
1.
S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.136/2010
LRs of Mangej Singh & Ors.
Vs.
Devi Lal & Ors.
Date of Order :: 13.8.2010
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR
Mr. S.L. Jain, for the appellants
...
This second appeal is preferred to challenge the judgment and decree dated 29.5.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Parbatsar affirming the judgment and decree dated 12.2.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Kuchaman City in Civil Original Suit No.20/2003.
In brief the facts of case are that the plaintiff-respondent Shri Devi Lal preferred a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the defendant-appellants with the assertion that in southern side of his house a public way is existing whereon the defendants are making encroachment.
The learned trial court by judgment dated 12.2.2009 decreed the suit and while doing so, gave a definite finding of fact by examining the evidence available on record. The finding of fact given by the trial court reads as follows : 2.
"पर व द पक क ओ स पट पदर ए-1 पदररत
क व य गय ह, ज नज नकर पदर-1 म म क
"जड" स" न प दररत भर$ म क पट ह न बत य
गय ह, जजसम उत म ब हम+, क घ , म ज न
क सत अ/ककत ह। अ" त पक + प उभय पक
क स कय स यह सपषतय पम ण+त ह कक पशगत
स"ल प सत अवशय ववदम न ह, वह सत आम
सत ह य पततव द ग+ क तनज< सत ह, इस
समबन? म आम सत क समबन? म नज नकर
पदर-1 बच नन म पदर-7 व पट पदर-9 पदररत
हAय ह, जजसम पशगत भर$ म क आम सत दररत
ककय गय ह, जबकक पट पदर-9 क ददन ह ग म
प/च यत नगव ड द पट पदर ए-1 ज ककय
गय ह, ज द न, पट, क पत वल एक ह ददन /क
29-6-1961 क द य हAय< त" एक ह स/कलप
स/खय 10 ददन /क 2-8-61 क म धयम स ज
हAय ह। जजसम पट पदर-9 म पशगत भर$ म क
आम सत दररत ककय गय ह, जबकक पट पदर
ए-1 म पशगत भर$ म क ब हम+, क घ , म ज न
क सत अ/ककत ककय गय ह, ककनतA पट पदर
ए-1 म पशगत सत क ककस< क तनज< सत
ह न क समबन? म क ई अ/कन नह / ककय गय ।"
The learned first appellate court by the judgment dated 29.5.2010 while affirming the finding given by the trial court, thoroughly examined the evidence available on record.
The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the judgment and decree are based on no evidence. 3.
I do not find any merit in the arguments advanced. As a matter of fact, the finding given by the trial court is based on documentary evidence as well as oral evidence adduced by the parties during the course of trial. The concurrent finding of facts given by the courts below does not require any disturbance by this court, as the matter does not involve any substantial question of law. This second appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(GOVIND MATHUR), J.
Sanjay/
4.