Gajanand Through Lrs vs Murari Lal Through Lrs … on 14 July, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur

Gajanand Through Lrs vs Murari Lal Through Lrs … on 14 July, 2025

Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

[2025:RJ-JP:26070]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 70/2016

1.       Gajanand S/o Ram Pratap, Village Naghodi, Teh. Beharod,
         Distt.      Alwar        Raj.        Deceased             Through      Legal
         Representatives-
1/1.     Jaswant     S/o     Late     Gajanand,          Village     Naghodi,    Teh.
         Beharod, Distt. Alwar Raj.
1/2.     Om Prakash S/o Late Gajanand, Village Naghodi, Teh.
         Beharod, Distt. Alwar Raj.
1/3.     Baijnath    S/o     Late     Gajanand,          Village     Naghodi,    Teh.
         Beharod, Distt. Alwar Raj.
1/4.     Radhey Shyam S/o Late Gajanand B/c Brahaman, Village
         Naghodi, Teh. Beharod, Distt. Alwar Raj.
1/5.     Savitri Wd/o Late Mahaveer Prasad, Village Naghodi, Teh.
         Beharod, Distt. Alwar Raj.
1/6      Pankaj S/o Mahaveer Prasad, Village Naghodi, Teh.
         Beharod, Distt. Alwar Raj.
1/7.     Anand Kumar S/o Late Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, Village
         Naghodi, Teh. Beharod, Distt. Alwar Raj.
1/8.     Prem Lata D/o Late Shri Gajanand, Village Naghodi, Teh.
         Beharod, Distt. Alwar Raj.
1/9.     Indramani D/o Late Shri Gajanand , Village Naghodi, Teh.
         Beharod, Distt. Alwar Raj.
                                                           ---Plaintiffs-Appellants
                                      Versus
1        Murari Lal S/o Ram Chandra, Naghodi, Teh. Beharod,
         Distt.      Alwar        Raj.        Deceased             Through      Legal
         Representatives-
1/1.     Santra Devi W/o Shri Murari Lal, Naghodi, Teh. Beharod,
         Distt. Alwar Raj.
1/2.     Virendra Kumar S/o Murari Lal, Naghodi, Teh. Beharod,
         Distt. Alwar Raj.
1/3.     Subhash S/o Shri Murari Lal Yadav, Naghodi, Teh.
         Beharod, Distt. Alwar Raj.
1/4.     Ahilya D/o Shri Murari Lal Yadav, Naghodi, Teh. Beharod,
         Distt. Alwar Raj.
1/5.     Kamla D/o Murari Lal Yadav, Naghodi, Teh. Beharod,

                       (Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:50:44 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JP:26070]                    (2 of 5)                            [CSA-70/2016]


         Distt. Alwar Raj.
                                                  ---Defendants-Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Lokesh Tiwari, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Poonia, Adv.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

14/07/2025

The present second appeal has been filed by the appellants-

plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the judgment and

decree dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge

No.2, Behror, Alwar (for short ‘the appellate court’) in Civil Appeal

No.69/2009(25/2003), whereby the appellate court while

dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, affirmed the judgment

and decree dated 29.05.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Behror, District Alwar (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil

Suit No.62/1998 by which the trial court dismissed the suit filed

by the plaintiffs for possession.

Brief facts of the case are that the original plaintiff filed a suit

for eviction against the original defendant mentioning therein that

on 24.11.1974, plot No.53 ad-measuring 30 X 45 ft. situated in

village Naghodi, Tehsil Behror was allotted to the original plaintiff

by the Gram Panchayat Silarpur but on account of dampness of

cow dung and flowing off hut in rainy season, the plaintiff obtained

permission for raising Pakka construction from the Gram

Panchayat, Silarpur and got constructed a strong wall in the half

portion of the southern side but due to financial restrains, he could

not raise the construction. It was also submitted that on

(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:50:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:26070] (3 of 5) [CSA-70/2016]

31.12.1997, the original defendant encroached on the original

plaintiff’s land unlawfully for which a decree for eviction was

sought.

The defendant filed the written statement and denied the

averments made in the plaint and stated that he had possession

on the disputed land long back. The original plaintiff wrongly got

allotted the said land in his favour by misusing his power because

he was the Vice-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. So, the suit

filed by the original plaintiff be dismissed.

On the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed the

following issues:-

01- vk;k oknh okn ds iSjk uacj 1 esa of.kZr tk;knkn oknh dh
fefY;r dCts dh Hkwfe gS\
02- vk;k izfroknh us fnukad 30-12-97 dks tcju mijksDr
Hkw[k.M ij dCtk dj fy;k gS\
03- vk;k oknh izfroknh tks csn[ky djok dj n[ky izkIr
djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\
04- vk;k oknh nkok ykus dks ,LVksIM gS\
05- vk;k tk;nkn eqruktk ij izfronh fcLlsnkjh mUewyu ls
iwoZ ls gh dkfct gS\
06- vk;k fookfnr txg pkjkxkg gS rFkk iapk;r dks oknh dks
iV~Vk nsus dk vf/kdkjh ugha Fkk\
07- vuqrks”k\
To prove his case, the original plaintiff got himself examined

as PW-1-Gajanand, PW-2-Pankaj Sharma and PW-3 Shyam

Sunder. To defend his case, the original defendant got examined

DW-1 Murari Lal, DW-2 Harphool, DW-3 Ramkishore and DW-4

Lalaram.

(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:50:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:26070] (4 of 5) [CSA-70/2016]

The trial court after hearing both the parties, dismissed the

suit filed by the original plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated

29.05.2003 held that the disputed land is a pasture land and the

Gram Panchayat had no power to allot it to anyone. Aggrieved by

the said judgment and decree dated 29.05.2003, the plaintiffs

filed an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court vide

judgment and decree dated 28.10.2015 dismissed the appeal filed

by the plaintiffs.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the appellate

court as well as the trial court committed an error in dismissing

the appeal as well as suit filed by the plaintiffs because the

disputed land was allotted to the original plaintiff by Gram

Panchayat and he constructed a temporary structure after

obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat. The original

defendant had no right to interfere in it. The original plaintiff had

not misused his power. So, the appeal be admitted on the

substantial questions of law, as formulated in the memo of appeal.

Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs and

submitted that the trial court as well as the appellate court rightly

dismissed the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiffs

because the disputed land is a pasture land which can not be

allotted to anyone. So, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs being

devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the plaintiffs as well as learned counsel for the

defendants.

(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:50:44 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:26070] (5 of 5) [CSA-70/2016]

It is an admitted position that the disputed land is a pasture

land which can not be allotted to anyone. So, in my considered

opinion, the trial court as well as the appellate court have not

committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal

filed by the plaintiffs. So, no substantial question of law is made

out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed

by the plaintiffs being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed,

which stands dismissed accordingly.

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

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/77

(Downloaded on 21/07/2025 at 09:50:44 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)