Pyarey R/o Village Nayawas, Teh. Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur v. Girraj S/o

1/6 Smt. Rukmani D/o Late Girraj W/o Chetram R/o Manoharpur Teh. Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur ----Respondents/Defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. J. P. Goyal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Yashika Vijayvargia For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 25/07/2025 Order The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant-plain- tiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Bharatpur (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in appeal No. 19/2003 whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal [2025:RJ-JP:27933] (2 of 4) [CSA-102/2009] filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated

25.01.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Bharatpur in civil suit No. 79/1997 by which the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for perma- nent injunction against the respondent-original defendant (for short ‘the defendant’). It is mentioned in the plaint that the Nohra is in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff which is men- tioned in para No.1 of the plaint. The measurements of the Nohra are 69 feet + 70 feet on the Southern-Northern side and 16 feet + 29 feet + 54 feet +75 feet towards the Northern-Western side which goes to the Southern side while 50 feet towards East-West on Southern side. Said Nohra belongs to the ancestors of the plaintiff. Defendant had no right regarding the said Nohra. Nohra is surrounded by the Rasta towards the East-North. Plaintiff had already constructed Chabutra on the northern side of the land. Thereafter 14-feet wide pathway begins before the land of Giriraj. Giriraj is raising construction by encroaching the way. So, injunc- tion be granted in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant filed the written statement and denied the aver- ments made in the plaint and stated that the way existed but the plaintiff on the northern side of the house has constructed chabu- tra encroaching the pathway and filed the present suit to harass him. Defendant is neither a trespasser nor encroaching on the pathway. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- [2025:RJ-JP:27933] (3 of 4) [CSA-102/2009] 1- vk;k okni= ds pj.k la[;k ,d esa of.kZr uke o lhek dk ukSgjk oknh ds LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; dk gS\ 2- vk;k okn&i= ds pj.k la[;k nks esa of.kZr Hkwfe jkLrk vke dh Hkwfe gS\ 3- vk;k izfroknh us fnukad 14-2-97 dks jkLrk of.kZr pj.k la[;k nks okn&i= dks cUn djus dh /kedh nh gS\ 4- vk;k izfroknh gtkZ [kkl :i, 1000@& ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 5- vuqrks"k\ To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Ram Kumar, got examined PW-2 Laxman and PW-3- Mahendra Singh and got exhibited certain documents. The defendant also got examined DW-1- Giriraj, DW-2 Laxman Prasad, DW-3 Charan Singh and DW-4- Puran Chandra and got exhibited certain docu- ments. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.01.2003, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff challenged the said judgment and decree dated

25.01.2003 passed by the trial Court by filing an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 22.10.2008 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff 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. Learned senior counsel further submits that the first appel- late Court which is the first court for fact finding had dismissed the appeal in a cursory manner without any reasonable finding. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have committed [2025:RJ-JP:27933] (4 of 4) [CSA-102/2009] an error in observing that the plaintiff failed to adduce any docu- mentary evidence to prove his ownership. Learned senior counsel further submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have found that the plaintiff is in continuous settled possession from the time of his ancestors. So, by virtue of long possession, plaintiff had got right of ownership on the disputed land and defendant had encroached the public way. So, the plaintiff is entitled to get mandatory injunction for re- moval of encroachment. So, the judgments passed by both the courts below be set aside, the present second appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of ap- peal and status quo be directed to be maintained. No one has put in appearance for the defendants. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned judgments. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff failed to adduce cogent evidence regarding encroachment of the defendant as well as the documentary evidence regarding the way. So, in my consid- ered opinion, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. So, no ground is made out to admit the appeal on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Therefore, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accord- ingly. Ritu/44 Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J