Secretary Saiyad Fazale Ahamad, District Karauli (Raj.) v. Nasib Khan S/o Vasheer Khan, R/o Dholikhar Karauli, District Karauli

: Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 21/07/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment dated

09.02.2023 passed by Additional District Judge, Karauli (for short ‘the appellate court’) in civil appeal No.49/2022, whereby the appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff on the ground that it was not maintainable under the Provision of Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act which was filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2022 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karauli (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.62/2016 titled as “Maulana Azad Children Academy Senior Secondary School Vs. Nasib Khan” by which the trial court [2025:RJ-JP:26941] (2 of 5) [CSA-86/2023] dismissed plaintiff’s suit for eviction and permanent injunction filed under Sections 6 & 38 of Specific Relief Act. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for eviction and permanent injunction against the defendant mentioning therein that the disputed property belonged to Peer Sahab Sayaid Siddikulhasan, who had no issue/child, nor any legal heir. In his old age, being in dire need of money, he sold the disputed land to Aam Musalman Panch Karauli in a consideration of Rs.2,500/- through a registered sale deed dated 26.11.1969 and handed over the possession to five persons. Since then, Aam Musalman Karauli got constructed a Madarsa Talimul Quran on the said land in which Tamili education was given to the children (known as Maulana Azad Children Academy, Bag-e-Barkat Karauli) under the control of the State Government. It was further mentioned that plinth ad measuring 18’ X 10’ in the southern side of the vacant land marked as A, B, C, D in the map enclosed with the plaint were dug out by the defendant on 02.04.2016 with a view to encroach the land and construct the rooms. When the plaintiff tried to stop the said construction, the defendant started quarrel. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed and construction raised by the defendant be demolished and possession of the disputed property be handed over to the plaintiff. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that the disputed land is not a part of Bag-e-Barkat. Rather it is a separate land which is situated in front of Rahison Ki Chhatari. For the safety of Karauli city, a Parkota(Periphery) was constructed by His Highness. In the [2025:RJ-JP:26941] (3 of 5) [CSA-86/2023] disputed property, the defendant is residing from the time of his forefathers. On 22.04.1983 a notice was issued to the forefathers of the defendant by the Nagar Palika. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k izfroknh ds }kjk oknhx.k dh dCts o vkf/kiR; dh tehu esa okni= ds lkFk layXu uD’ks esa v-c-l-n- ls nf’kZr LFkku ij yxHkx 18 QhV xq.kk 10 QhV dh Hkwfe ij dejs dk fuekZ.k djus ds fy;s vfrdze.k fd;k \ 2- vk;k oknh dks gLrxr okn is’k djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gksus ds ckn [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS \ 3- vk;k oknh dk okn E;kn ckgj gksus ls [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS \ 4- vuqrks"k \ To prove its case, the plaintiff got examined PW-1 Sayaid Fazale Ahamad, PW-2 Ishaq Ahemad, PW-3 Rajaulla and PW-4 Liyakat Ali and got exhibited certain documents. To prove his case, the defendant got examined DW-1 Nasib Khan, DW-2 Fakaruddin, and DW-3 Rafiq Khan and got exhibited certain documents. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2022 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated

18.10.2022, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate Court vide judgment dated 09.02.2023 also dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not maintainable under the Provision of Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial court as well as the appellate court have committed an error while [2025:RJ-JP:26941] (4 of 5) [CSA-86/2023] dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. The trial court committed an error in holding that the map which was annexed with the plaint, was not exhibited in the plaintiff’s evidence. So, it can not be read as a documentary evidence. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that notice issued to the defendant by the Nagar Palika has no concerned with the disputed property but the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 18.10.2022 wrongly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove his possession over 6 months from the date of dispossession. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that a complaint (Ex.2) was submitted before the police authority which clearly shows that the plaintiff was in possession over the disputed property for six months prior to filing the suit. So, the judgments passed by both the courts below are required to be set-aside and the present second appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the defendant has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the plaintiff had to prove that the plaintiff was having the possession over the disputed property prior to six months from the date of dispossession but the plaintiff failed to adduce any cogent evidence in this regard. So, the trial court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff. So, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Hence, the appeal be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. [2025:RJ-JP:26941] (5 of 5) [CSA-86/2023] It is an admitted position that the plaintiff failed to adduce cogent evidence that he was having the possession over the disputed property for the last six months prior to the date of filing the suit. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court as well as the 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 accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed. Gourav/58 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J