High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan · 2025

1/5 Saroj D/o Late Shri Kana Ram, aged 32 years 1/6 Sushila D/o Late Shri Kana Ram, aged 30 years 1/7 Shobha D/o Late Shri Kana Ram, aged 28 years 1/8 Reena D/o Late Shri Kana Ram, aged 26 years ----Appellants Versus Prabhu Raiger, S/o Sh. Ganga Ram, R/o Ramdev Colony, Village Kookas, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur Raj ----Respondent/Defendant For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prem Shanker Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 13/08/2025 Judgment The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, District Jaipur (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in appeal No. 11/18 (48/17) whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.1, Jaipur District Jaipur in civil suit No. 95/2010 (115/2015) by which the plaintiff’s suit has been dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:31472] (2 of 4) [CSA-219/2018] Brief facts of the case are that the original plaintiff filed a suit against the respondent-defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) for permanent and mandatory injunction mentioning therein that the plaintiff owes a piece of land admeasuring 284.37 sq. yards in Ramdev Colony, Village Kukas, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur. On the eastern side of the land, there is ancestral property of the plaintiff, which is in his possession for more than 50 years. Defendant purchased a plot on the western side of the plaintiff’s land and started to construct a wall, windows, Roshandan, Chhajas, Nalas and Parnalas adjacent to the plaintiff’s land. Plaintiff raised objection regarding the said construction. Plaintiff also lodged a report under Section 107/116(3) Cr.P.C. but the defendant had not removed the construction. Defendant filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated disputed land is not the land of the plaintiff. The said land is a government land and it was left open for parking and other purposes. Defendant had constructed the house in the year 2002 after getting patta from Jaipur Development Authority and at present, the defendant is not raising any type of construction work. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1- vk;k oknh fo:} izfroknh okn i= ds lkFk layXu uD’ks esa ihys jax ls nf’kZr IykWV ds if’peh nhokj ij lEiw.kZ IykWV dh yEckbZ esa djok;s x;s fuekZ.k dks /oLr djok;s tkus ,oa dCtk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSa\ 2- vk;k oknh tfj;s LFkk;h नि(cid:2)षेधा्ሺा izfroknh dks ikcan djok;s tkus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd og oknh ds okni= dh en la[;k 1 esa of.kZr o layXu [2025:RJ-JP:31472] (3 of 4) [CSA-219/2018] uD’ks esa nf’kZr IykWV dh if’peh nhokj ij pjisVok fuekZ.k ugha djsa rFkk oknh ds IykWV dh vksj tkyh] jks’kunku] NTtk] f[kM+fd;k] njoktk] ukys&ijukys ugha fudkys o oknh ds mi;ksx miHkksx o fjgk;’k esa ck/kk mRiUu ugha djsa\ 3- vk;k mijksDr fookfnr Hkwfe ikdZ dh ljdkjh Hkwfe gSa\ 4- vuqrks"k\” To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Kanha, PW-2 Radheshyam, PW-3 Raju and got exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1- Prabhudayal, DW-2 Babulal, DW-3 Rajendra and got exhibited certain documents. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff challenged the said judgment and decree dated

18.09.2017 passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 07.03.2018 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned 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 counsel further submits that both the courts below have misread the evidence led by the parties. Plaintiff in his statement clearly stated that prior to his possession, land belonged to one Bhagirath which was in his khatedari. Government land is in the eastern side of the Bhagirath’s land. So, the contention of the defendant that plaintiff had encroached on the government land, is not true. So, the judgments passed by both the courts below be set aside and the present second appeal [2025:RJ-JP:31472] (4 of 4) [CSA-219/2018] be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the defendant opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have rightly dismissed the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff as witnesses of the plaintiff admitted the fact that defendant had raised construction on his own land. So, the appeal filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff as well as counsel for the defendants. It is an admitted position that witnesses of the plaintiff admitted the fact that defendant had constructed the house on his own land. Plaintiff had encroached on the government land. 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 also the appeal filed by the plaintiff. So, the civil second appeal 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/70 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J