Mandir, Johari Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan.) vs Bhairu Lal Diggiwala S/o Shri Gyarsi Lal, R/o House No.

Judgment

1. Bhairu Lal Diggiwala S/o Shri Gyarsi Lal, R/o House No. 3250, Near Santoshi Mata Mandir , Jai Lal Munshi Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Died During Suit) 1/1. Rukmani Devi W/o Late Bhairu Lal (Died During Suit), R/o House No. 3250 Near Santoshi Mata Mandir , Jailal Munshi Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Raj.) 1/2. Shyam Babu S/o Late Bhairu Lal, R/o House No. 3250 Near Santoshi Mata Mandir , Jailal Munshi Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Raj.) 1/3. Ram Babu S/o Lat Bhairu Lal, R/o House No. 3250 Near Santoshi Mata Mandir , Jailal Munshi Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Raj.) 1/4. Ramjanki D/o Late Bhairu Lal, R/o House No. 3250 Near Santoshi Mata Mandir , Jailal Munshi Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Raj.) 1/5. Shanti D/o Late Bhairu Lal, R/o House No. 3250 Near Santoshi Mata Mandir , Jailal Munshi Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Raj.) 1/6. Sushila Devi D/o Late Bhairu Lal, R/o House No. 3250 Near Santoshi Mata Mandir , Jailal Munshi Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Raj.) 1/7. Indra D/o Late Bhairu Lal, R/o House No. 3250 Near Santoshi Mata Mandir , Jailal Munshi Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Raj.) 1/8. Manbhari D/o Late Bhairu Lal, R/o House No. 3250 Near Santoshi Mata Mandir , Jailal Munshi Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. J.K. Moolchandani, Adv. Mr. Devanshu Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Mishra, Adv. [2025:RJ-JP:38339] (2 of 7) [CSA-64/2023] Ms. Meeta Pareek, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 18/09/2025 1- vihykFkhZ@oknh dh vksj ls ;g f}rh; vihy vUrxZr /kkjk 100 lh- ih-lh- ds rgr fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&5] t;iqj egkuxj&izFke] t;iqj }kjk nhokuh fu;fer vihy la[;k 248@2018 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 11-11-2022 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls vihykFkhZ@oknh dh vihy [kkfjt djrs gq, fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; vfrfjDr flfoy U;k;k/kh'k dze&2] t;iqj egkuxj }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k 498@1999 esa ikfjr fu.kZ;@fMØh fnukad 24-09-2018 dh iqf"V dh x;h] ftlds ek/;e ls vihykFkhZ@oknh dk okn ckcr~ LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk [kkfjt fd;k x;kA 2- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ rFkk izR;FkhZ dh cgl lquhA pwafd ;g f}rh; flfoy vihy gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa tc rd fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u varoZfyr ugha gks] rc rd lquokbZ gsrq xzg.k ugha dh tk ldrh gS rFkk fopkj.k o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk tks fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS] mlesa lkekU; :i ls gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigda Laxmi and Anr. AIR 2008 SC 380 ds iSjk la[;k 13 esa fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS %& "13. The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only [2025:RJ-JP:38339] (3 of 7) [CSA-64/2023] refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding." 3- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk vU; U;kf;d fu.kZ; Gurnam Singh vs. Lehna Singh 2019 (7) SCC 641 esa Hkh mijksDr er O;Dr djrs gq, ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd f}rh; vihy esa lk{; dk iqu% fo'ys"k.k o foospu vuqKs; ugha gS] mijksDr fu.kZ; dk lqlaxr Hkkx fuEukuqlkj gS%& "Before parting with the present judgment, we remind the High Courts that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in an appeal under Section 100 CPC, is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below and/or the first appellate court and if the first appellate court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in second appeal. We have noticed and even as repeatedly observed by this Court and even in Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini [Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, (2009) 5 SCC 264 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 500] , despite the catena of decisions of this Court and even the mandate under Section 100 CPC, the High Courts under Section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of facts and/or even the findings recorded by the first appellate court, either without formulating the substantial question of law or on framing erroneous substantial question of law." 4- fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u D;k gksxk] bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by L.Rs AIR 2001 SC 965 ds iSjk la[;k&12 esa fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS%& [2025:RJ-JP:38339] (4 of 7) [CSA-64/2023] "12. The phrase 'substantial question of law', as occurring in the amended Section 100 is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying 'question of law', means — of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with — technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of 'substantial question of law' by suffixing the words “of general importance” as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta v. T. Ram Ditta [AIR 1928 PC 172 : 55 IA 235] , the phrase 'substantial question of law' as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 110 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case as between the parties......" 5- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk ;g rdZ gS fd bl izdj.k esa x`g fuekZ.k lgdkjh lfefr ftlds i{k esa fodz; vuqca/k crk;k tk jgk gS] dk okn lafonk dh fofufnZ"V vuqikyuk ds ckcr~ [kkfjt gks pqdk gS] vr% lfefr }kjk izfroknh dze&1 dks Hkw[k.M vkoafVr fd;k x;k gS rc Hkh og fcuk fdlh vf/kdkj ds gS] ekSds ij izfroknh dze&1 dk dCtk ugha gS ysfdu blds ckotwn fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; rFkk vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk lk{; dk lgh :i ls foospu fd;s fcuk ,oa rF;ksa o fof/k ds foijhr tkdj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gS tks vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSA 6- blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ }kjk ;g rdZ fn;k x;k gS fd f}rh; vihy esa fof/k ds lkjoku iz'u vUrxZzLr gksus ij gh lquk tk ldrk gS] lk{; dk iqu% fo'ys"k.k o foospu vuqKs; ugha gS] oknxLr Hkw[k.M ij oknh dk dCtk ugha gS rFkk Lo;a oknh us viuh izfrijh{kk esa Lohdkj fd;k [2025:RJ-JP:38339] (5 of 7) [CSA-64/2023] gS fd ^^;g ckr lgh gS fd bl IykWV ij izfroknhx.k us dejk cuk j[kk gS ftldh QksVks izn'kZ ,&11 o 12 gSA^^ ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd blds vykok Hkh ;g Hkwfe vokIr gks pqdh gS rFkk oknh us viuh izfrijh{kk esa bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa bl Hkw[k.M vFkok Hkwfe ds laca/k esa oknh ds dksbZ fof/kd vf/kdkj o vkf/kiR; ugha gS] vUr eas vihyk/khu fu.kZ;ksa dks fof/k ds vuq:i gksuk crkrs gq, f}rh; vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA 7- lqlaxr rF; ;g gS fd oknh }kjk LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk okn izLrqr dj vfHkdfFkr fd;k fd okni= ds pj.k la[;k&2 esa of.kZr 8 ch?kk 8 fcLok Hkwfe oknh rFkk mlds lg&[kkrsnkjksa dh 'kkeykrh gS ftlesa ls 2 ch?kk Hkwfe oknh ds LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; dh gS vkSj izfroknh tcju bl Hkwfe ij dCtk djuk pkgrk gSA izfroknh }kjk mijksDr vfHkdFkuksa ls badkj djrs gq, oknxzLr Hkwfe vius LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; dh gksuk crk;k gSA 8- fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk oknh }kjk Hkwfe vokIr gksus rFkk bl Hkwfe ij izfroknh dk dCtk gksus dh Lohd`fr o vU; lk{; ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd oknh dk oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ij dksbZ vkf/kiR; ugha gS vkSj bl dkj.k ls og LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA 9- fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls U;kf;d fu.kZ; Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs. And Others (2008) 4 SCC 594 izLrqr djrs gq, ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd tgka oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ij oknh dk vkf/kiR; ugha gS rks ek= LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk okn Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gSA mijksDr fu.kZ; dk iSjk la[;k&13 lqlaxr gS tks fuEukuqlkj gS&

13. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly.

13.1 Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit [2025:RJ-JP:38339] (6 of 7) [CSA-64/2023] for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.

13.2 where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.

13.3 Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction. 10- iwoksZDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk o f}rh; vihy ds Ldksi vkfn ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k ij miyC/k lkexzh o lk{; dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu djus ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vfHkys[k ij miyC/k rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa Lohd`fr dh vuns[kh dh gks ;k tks rF; vfHkys[k ij miyC/k ugha gS] ml ij fopkj fd;k gks ;k lkfcr rF;ksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ xyr bUÝsal gks] ,slk n`f"Vxr ugha gksrk gS] fo}ku fopkj.k rFkk vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh dk lgh :i ls fo'ys"k.k o foospu fd;k gS rFkk fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dh iqf"V fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk dh x;h gS] bl izdkj leorhZ rF;kRed fu"d"kZ jgk gaS] blfy, mijksDr fu.kZ;ksa esa gLr{ksi fd, tkus ds dksbZ fof/klEer vk/kkj ugha gSA 11- vr% nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk mDr lEcU/k esa vfHkfyf[kr leorhZ rF;kRed fu"d"kksZa esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ =qfV vFkok izfrdwyrk [2025:RJ-JP:38339] (7 of 7) [CSA-64/2023] ugha gksus ls o bl f}rh; vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjHkwr iz'u ugha gksus ls ;g f}rh; vihy xzg.kkFkZ Lrj ij gh fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS] tks ,rn~}kjk fujLr dh tkrh gSA 12- LFkxu vkosnu o vU; vkosnu] ;fn dksbZ yafcr gksa] rks os Hkh mDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA Mittal /84 (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J