District Dausa Rajasthan vs Radhey Shyam S/o Badrinarayn R/o Bidarkha, Tehsil Ramgarh,

: Mr. Madhav Dhadhich for Mr. Gaurav Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 15/05/2025 Order

1. This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge Lalsot, District-Dausa (for short 'the first appellate Court') in civil regular appeal No. 26/2017 whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 11.04.2017 passed by the trial Court [2025:RJ-JP:20490] (2 of 6) [CSA-261/2018] dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The first appellate Court also affirmed the orders dated 25.04.2017 and 10.05.2017 passed by the trial Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) mentioning therein that land of the house demarcated as A, B, C, D in the map annexed with the plaint was purchased from Kajod S/o Chandra, Bohrilal S/o Ramnarayan, Bohrilal S/o Mangilal and Laduram S/o Korilal by Ramdhan, Sitaram Ramsahai S/o Bohrilal on 02.11.1965. After purchase, all the three purchasers constructed houses and started living therein and divided the house mutually as per family settlement. In the said house, portion marked E, F, G, H and G, H, I, J came in the share of Ramdhan and Ram Sahai. In the said premises chowk, stairs and bada behind the house were common. On the first floor of the portion marked E, F, G, H two rooms were constructed and in the western side of the house where the plaintiff was residing as a tenant till 1982. Thereafter, Ramdhan and Ram Sahai sold two rooms over the portion marked E, F, G, H and varandah marked G, H, I, J and 2/3rd portion of the chowk, stairs and bada to the defendant. From 06.07.1983, the plaintiff continued to reside as a tenant in the shop and varandah covered with tin shed and used gallery and stairs to go above roof. On 27.02.1992, Jagdish Prasad, Bhagwan Sahai, Niranjan, Vinod and Chandramohan sons of Late Sita Ram came and donated their 1/3rd portion in the house as mentioned in the para No. 4 of the plaint and execute a document. When the plaintiff went to his house and tried to construct a wall on the land, the defendant [2025:RJ-JP:20490] (3 of 6) [CSA-261/2018] came their with other persons having lethal weapons in their hands and pulled the plaintiff. It was prayed that the defendant be restrained to create hurdle in the construction being done by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs be allowed to raise construction thereon.

3. Defendant filed his written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs. Defendant has exclusive possession and he is the owner of the disputed premises. So, suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed.

4. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues:- 01- vk;k okni= ds layXu utjh ekufp= iznf’kZr edku ,-ch- lh-Mh dh tehu of.kZr pj.k la[;k&1 okni= ekfydku ls jke/ku] lhrkjke] jkelgk; firk Hkksajhyky tkfr egktu fuoklh fcnj[kk us 425 #i;s esa fefr dkfrZd lqnh 9 ¼uoeh½ la[;k 2022 rn~uqlkj rk- 02-11-65 dks dz; dj mDr rhuksa HkkbZ;ksa us foHkktu dj iq[rk edku rkehj djok;k Fkk ftlesa ;g i`Fkd i`Fkd dkfct gksdj fuokl djrs gSa\ 02- vk;k oknxzLr edku ds if’pe dh rjQ dh lky fufnZ"V fcUnq bZ- ,Q- th- ,p- ds mij eafty vOoy esa nks iq[rk dejs cus gq;s gSa bu nksuksa dejksa esa oknh lu~ 1982 bZ- ls bl edku ds fgLls dh mDr jke/ku] jkelgk; }kjk cspus rd cgSfl;r fdjk;snkj fuokl djrk gS\ 03- vk;k izfroknh dks mDr jke/ku] jkelgk; us vius fgLls esa vk;s edku fcUnq bZ-,Q-th-,p- ,oa mij cus nksuksa dejs cjkenk pkSd] uky o ckM+k 'kkfeykrh esa viuk mDr 2@3 fgLlk izfroknh dks fodz; dj fn;k\ 'ks"k 1@3 ds mi;ksx] miHkksx djus ,oa izfroknh ds fo#) LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk oknh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 04- vk;k fnukad 06-07-83 bZ- ls layXu uD’ks esa ntZ nqdku ds ,y-,e-,u- dejk vks-ih-D;w-vkj- ,oa Vhu iks’k cjkenk ,e-vkj- Mh-lh- esa oknh fdjk;snkj ds :i esa jgrs te x;k ,oa ,y-,y- vks-D;w- pkSd o thus esa gksdj mij Nr ij tkus ds dke ysus [2025:RJ-JP:20490] (4 of 6) [CSA-261/2018] x;k ftls oknh fo:) izfroknh mi;ksx] miHkksx djus esa O;o/kku djus izokfjr j[kus gsrq LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 05- vk;k oknxzLr edku esa Lo-lhekjkr ds iq=kx.k us fnukad 27-02-1992 dks vius fgLls 1@3 dks oknh dks nkudj fn;kA vr% oknh cgSfl;r ekfyd dkfct gSA 06- vk;k okni= oknh le; lhek esa izLrqr gS\ 07- vk;k oknxzLr edku izfroknh us fnukad 24-07-91 dks le/ku egktu ls dz; dj dCtk izkIr fd;k Fkk izfroknh cgSfl;r ekfyd dkfct gS\ 08- vk;k okn dkj.k ds vHkko esa okn fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ 09- vk;k U;k;’kqYd vi;kZIr gS\ 10- vk;k vko’;d i{kdkj ds vHkko esa 'kh"kZd okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 11- vk;k viathd`r nku&i= ds vk/kkj ij 'kh"kZd okn pyus ugha gSa\ 12- vuqrks"k\

5. After giving several opportunities, plaintiffs as well as defendant did not adduce their evidence.

6. Therefore, vide judgment and decree dated 11.04.2017 the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs in absence of evidence.

7. Plaintiffs challenged the said judgment and decree dated

11.04.2017 passed by the trial Court by way of an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.2018 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had committed an error in [2025:RJ-JP:20490] (5 of 6) [CSA-261/2018] dismissing the suit and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that first appellate Court had to grant opportunity to plaintiffs for adducing their evidence and should have remanded the matter to the trial Court. Therefore, the trial Court as well as the first appellate court had committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal. So, the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2018 passed by the first appellate Court as well as judgment and decree dated 11.04.2017 passed by the trial Court be set aside.

9. Learned counsel for the defendant has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiffs and submitted that the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs because plaintiffs failed to adduce their evidence. So, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiffs is devoid of merit. No substantial question of law is made out. So, the appeal be dismissed.

10. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments.

11. It is an admitted position that plaintiffs failed to adduce the evidence before the trial Court. The trial Court rightly closed the evidence of the plaintiffs. On account of not adducing the evidence, suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed and appeal was also dismissed. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. [2025:RJ-JP:20490] (6 of 6) [CSA-261/2018] Therefore, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiffs being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

12. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Tahir/55 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J