Tehsil Nawalgarh Distt. Jhunjhunu v. Ganni Deceased Through His Legal Representatives

1/4 Smt. Parmeshwari widow of Sh Kewal Ram R/o Togra Kala Tehsil Nawalgarh Distt. Jhunjhunu ----Appellants/Plaintiffs Versus

2. Ganni Deceased Through His Legal Representatives- Smt. Bismillah widow late Ganni, R/o Togra Kalan Babu Khan S/o Late Ganni , Togrta Kala, Teh. Nawalgarh Distt. Jhunjhunu

3. Fakroo @ Sunda S/o Late Ganni, Togrta Kala, Teh. Nawalgarh Distt. Jhunjhunu

4. Ishev S/o Late Ganni Togrta Kala, Teh. Nawalgarh Distt. Jhunjhunu

5. Amin S/o Late Ganni Togrta Kala, Teh. Nawalgarh Distt. Jhunjhunu ----Respondents/Defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.M.Ranjan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Lokesh Tiwari For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 01/08/2025 Order The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the judgment and [2025:RJ-JP:29382] (2 of 5) [CSA-114/2000] decree dated 14.12.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhunjhunu (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in appeal No. 99/96 (77/96) whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 01.08.1996 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nawalgarh in civil suit No. 52/87 by which the plaintiff’s suit has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the original plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, for removal of articles and for possession of the land mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint. Plaintiff in his plaint mentioned that the property mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint belongs to plaintiff. Previous suit which was filed by Dhakha Devi, Bhabhi of the original plaintiff, against the Gram Panchayat, was decreed and the Guwari and the area described in the plaint was declared in the ownership of Dhakha Devi. Original Plaintiff- Kewal ram was the only legal representative of Dhakha Devi. Respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) wanted to grab 3 feet wide land left by the plaintiff at the time of raising permanent construction and also wanted to close the ventilator of the eastern side by constructing a wall. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that the disputed property mentioned in the previous suit is not the one which was mentioned in the suit. Property mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint is not in the ownership of the plaintiff. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:29382] (3 of 5) [CSA-114/2000] On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

1.- vk;k oknh izfroknhx.k dks bl vk’k; dh LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd os oknhx.k dks uD’ks esa D;w-ch-lh-Mh-bZ-,Q-th-ds-MCY;w-,Dl fcUnqvksa dh tks uD’ks esa yky jax ls fn[kkbZ x;h gS esa fuekZ.k o vfrdze.k ugha djs vkSj oknh ds jks’kunku D;w vkj ,u- dks cUn ugha djsaA 2- vk;k oknh bl vk’k; dh fMdzh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd izfroknhx.k Mh- bZ,Q- th- fcUnq dks uD’ks esa fn[kk;s x;s 2x3 QqV ij izfroknh dk uktk;t dCtk gS og gVk;k tkdj oknh dCtk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS vkSj oknh dks dCtk fnyk;k tk ldrk gSA 3- vk;k oknh izfroknhx.k dks bl vk’k; dh LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd okn i= dh /kkjk 1 esa of.kZr oknh dh xqokMh ij izfroknhx.k vkbZUnk fdlh izdkj dk dCtk ugha djs vkSj xqokMh ds mi;ksx miHkksx esa fdlh izdkj dh ck/kk u rks Lo;a iSnk djs u gh vius O;fDr;ksa ls iSnk djok;sA 4- vk;k oknh us viuh xqokMh ds LokfeRo dh ckcr dksbZ lcwr nLrkosth o uki is’k ugha fd;k gS bl dkj.k nkok [kkfjt gksus yk;d gSA 5- vk;k fooknxzLr xqokMh ij izfroknhx.k dk 38 lky ls dCtk gS bl dkj.k nkok LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk o rkehj rqMokus dk okn ugha py ldrk gSA 6- vk;k nkok fe;kn ckgj gksus ls [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA 7- vk;k nkok esa U;k;ky; ’kqYd de fn;k x;k gS bl dkj.k nkok [kkfjt gksus yk;d gSA 8- vk;k oknh dks vius LokfeRo dh ?kks"k.kk djok;s fcuk ;g nkok gqDe bErukbZ djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA vr% nkok [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA 9- vk;k oknh us vius nkos esa ;g dgh Hkh ugh fy[kk gS fd jks’kunku dejs esa vk’k;lh gd ls dc ls o fdl izdkj ls izkIr gq, bl dkj.k nkok [kkfjt gksus yk;d gSA 10- nknjlhA [2025:RJ-JP:29382] (4 of 5) [CSA-114/2000] To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 Kewalram, PW-2 Vijendra Kumar, PW-3 Banwari Lal and PW-4 Raghuveer. The defendants also got examined DW-1- Ganni Mohammed, DW-2 Bhagirath Singh, DW-3 Khamaram and DW-4 Badrudeen. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.08.1996, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree dated

01.08.1996 passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 14.12.1999 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate court have committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Both the courts below have not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. Previous suit, which was instituted in the year 1961 was decreed in favour of Dhakha Devi, who is predecessor of the plaintiff. Plaintiff in his evidence exhibited the decree as Ex.3 and site plan as Ex.4. So, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to submit the patta. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that both the courts below have committed an error in not considering the Commissioner report. Defendants had not produced the title deed. So, the judgments passed by both the courts below be set aside and the second appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. No one has put in appearance for the defendants. [2025:RJ-JP:29382] (5 of 5) [CSA-114/2000] I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the impugned judgments. Plaintiff had not exhibited the patta in his evidence. Decree and map had no relevance to decide the present controversy. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. So, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs deserves to be dismissed as no substantial question of law is made out. Therefore, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Ritu/35 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J