HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No v. Jagdish Kumar S/o Ram Kishan, R/o Mohalla Hathyapaur, Bari, District Dholpur

: Mr. Raj Kamal Gaur, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhawani Shankar, Adv for Mr. Alok Chaturvedi, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 31 /0 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Dholpur (for short 'the first appellate Court') in civil regular appeal No.122/2007 whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.) Bari, District Dholpur (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No.02/2002, by which the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit for permanent injunction. [2025:RJ-JP:28956] (2 of 5) [CSA-191/2011] Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) in which it was stated that house of their ownership and possession was situated at Mohalla Hathyapaur, Bari. In the eastern side of their house, there is an open land measuring 4X3 inch and thereafter house of the defendant is situated. The said house was purchased by plaintiffs’ father in the year 1968 from the defendant’s father through registered sale deed. After that, plaintiffs’ father got raised construction after obtaining permission from Municipal Council. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that in the eastern side land, there is an open Chedi in the ownership of the plaintiffs and it is a part of the sale deed, where Kacha Latrine was built by them but defendant wanted to demolish the said Kacha Latrine of the plaintiffs and also dispossess them from their land. Defendant filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that the disputed Chedi is in his ownership and he is using the said land. So, the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed because in the previous suit, the said open land was declared of the defendant’s ownership by the competent court. So, the present suit is barred by res-judicata. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- (i) Whether the disputed property described in para No.5 of the plaint and shown in red colour in the map attached with the plaint is in the ownership of the plaintiffs and part of the house purchased by the plaintiffs’ father? [2025:RJ-JP:28956] (3 of 5) [CSA-191/2011] (ii) Whether the defendant had threatened the plaintiffs to break open the wall of Room No.5, latrine and disputed Chedi and to close down the gates and water sewerage in order to encroach upon the disputed property unlawfully? (iii) Whether the suit is barred by the Principles of Res-judicata? (iv) Whether suit is under valued and deficit court fees has been paid? (v) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (vi) Whether the heirs of the plaintiffs’ brothers Dal Chand and Dinesh Chand and sister Sarvati are necessary parties and on account of non-impleadment of the necessary party, the suit is liable to dismissed on this count? (vii) Relief? To prove their case, plaintiffs got examined as PW-1-Ramesh Chand, PW-2-Mukesh Kumar and PW-3-Narrotam Lal. The defendant also got examined as DW-1-Jagdish Kumar and DW-2- Chandra Shekhar. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.07.2006 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment dated 25.07.2006 and appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that the trial court as well as the appellate court had committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiffs. They had not appreciated the evidence led by the plaintiffs in the right [2025:RJ-JP:28956] (4 of 5) [CSA-191/2011] perspective. The plaintiffs in their evidence proved that the disputed Chedi which is shown in red colour annexed with the map is a part of the house of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that the trial court as well as appellate court wrongly came to the conclusion that the present suit is barred by law on account of res-judicata. The previous suit was not for the same land, so, the findings of the trial court as well as the appellate court deserves to be set aside. So, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs be admitted on the substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the defendant has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs and submitted that the trial court as well as the appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that in the previous suit the matter regarding the disputed land was adjudicated and the said land was declared in the ownership of defendant-Jagdish Kumar. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiffs being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiffs as well as counsel for the defendant. It is an admitted position that the plaintiffs failed to prove the cogent evidence that disputed land belongs to the plaintiffs. Regarding the same disputed land, the previous suit was decided on merit and findings regarding the disputed land became absolute. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court as well as appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that the present suit is not maintainable being barred by Principles of Res-judicata. So, in my considered opinion, no substantial question of law is made [2025:RJ-JP:28956] (5 of 5) [CSA-191/2011] out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiffs being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Avinash/42 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J