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 examinedas 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)
[ad_1]
Source link