Village Gagwana Tehsil and District Ajmer v. Smt. Bhuri Devi W/o Late Motu, (Since Deceased)

Judgment

2. All residents of Maliyon Ki Dhani, Village Gagwana, Presently Village Bandya, Behind New Building of Rajasthan Lok Seva Aayog, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.

3. Laxmanlal S/o Late Chotulal, (Since Deceased, Through LR's)

Smt. Manju W/o Ramesh D/o Laxmanlal, Resident Of Bhutiya Kheda, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer. Smt. Sanju W/o Omprakash D/o Late Laxmanlal, Resident of Bhutiya Kheda, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer. Rajkumar S/o Late Laxmanlal, Resident of Nahi Basti, Lohakhan, Ajmer.

4. Ranglal S/o Late Chotu, Resident of Maliyon Ki Dhani Village Gagwana Tehsil and District Ajmer ----Appellants Versus

2. Smt. Bhuri Devi W/o Late Motu, (Since Deceased). Mohan S/o Late Motu, (Since Deceased, Through LR's) Smt. Dhapu Devi W/o Late Mohanlal, Resident of Near Railway Station, Village Ladpura, Tehsil and District Ajmer. Tulsiram S/o Late Mohan, Resident Of Near Purani Chungi Chowki, Meershah Ali, Ajmer. Gopal Alias Ramgopal Gehlot S/o Late Mohan, (Since Deceased, Through LR's). 2/3/1 Smt. Premdevi W/o Late Gopal Alias Ramgopal Gehlot, 2/3/2 Madhu Gehlot S/o Late Gopal Alias Ramgopal Gehlot, [2025:RJ-JP:36217] (2 of 7) [CSA-406/2024] 2/3/3 Kamal Alias Lalchand S/o Late Gopal Alias Ramgopal Gehlot, All residents of Through Firm Gehlot Water And Generators, Village Bhoonabay Tehsil And District Ajmer. 2/3/4 Smt. Mamta W/o Gyanchand D/o Late Gopal Alias Ramgopal Gehlot, Resident Of Through Hansraj Dagdi, Banjara Basti, Topdara, Ajmer. Madan S/o Late Mohan, (Since Deceased, Through LR's). 2/4/1 Mrs. Heera W/o Late Madan 2/4/2 Manoharlal S/o Late Madan 2/4/3 Omprakash S/o Late Madan 2/4/4 Mukesh S/o Late Madan 2/4/5 Miss Santosh D/o Late Madan All residents Of Jawahar Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Near Chungi Chowki, Ajmer. Ghanshyam S/o Late Mohan, Resident Of Behind Lok Seva Aayog , Bandhiya, Ajmer. Ratan S/o Late Mohan, Resident Of Maliyon Ki Dhani, Gagwana, Ajmer. Kalu S/o Mohan, Resident Of Bhopon Ka Bada, Ajmer. Hanuman S/o Late Mohan, Resident Of Near Railway Station, Gram Ladpura Tehsil And District Ajmer. Smt. Rodi (Geeta) W/o Jagdish Chandoliya, Resident Of Maaaliyon Ki Baadi, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer. Smt. Leela W/o Hanuman, Resident Of Mali Mohalla, Dudu, District Jaipur.

3. Ugma S/o Late Motu, (Since Deceased, Through LR's). Smt. Dallu W/o Late Ugma, (Since Deceased) (Deleted). Rameshwar, S/o Late Ugma Guman, S/o Late Ugma Dayal S/o Late Ugma, (Since Deceased) (Deleted). All Through Gumaan Mali, Residents Of Shivaji Nagar, Behind Ganesh Ji Mandir, Kishangarh, District Ajmer.

5. Smt. Sugni Widow Of Sohan, Prakash S/o Sohan, All residents Of Maaliyon Ki Dhani, Gram Gagwana Tehsil And District Ajmer. [2025:RJ-JP:36217] (3 of 7) [CSA-406/2024] ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ridhvick Dosi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Daga, Adv. Mr. Rahul Chouhan, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 09/09/2025 ;g f}rh; vihy vUrxZr /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- [email protected] ¼vkxs ^^oknhx.k^^ dgk tkosxk½ }kjk fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&2] vtesj }kjk nhokuh fu;fer vihy la[;k 06@2017 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 07-08-2024 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls [email protected] dh vihy [kkfjt djrs gq, fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼d0[k0½ vtesj] ftyk&vtesj }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k 297@1993 esa ikfjr fu.kZ;@fMdzh fnukad 23-04-2010 dh iqf"V dh x;h] ftlds ek/;e ls [email protected] dk okn ckcr~ olh;r dks voS/k o 'kwU; ?kksf"kr djus rFkk LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk [kkfjt fd;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk oknhx.k rFkk izR;[email protected] ¼vkxs ^^izfroknhx.k^^ dgk tkosxk½ dh cgl lquh x;h] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA lqlaxr rF; ;g gS fd oknhx.k rFkk izfroknhx.k nksuksa gh Lo0 eksVwth ds oa'kt gSa] eksVwth }kjk dfFkr :i ls fnukad 17-04-1963 dks ,d olh;r vius rhu iq= eksgu] mxek rFkk lksgu ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr djkrs gq, iathd`r djk;k ftls eksVwth ds pkSFks iq= NksVw ds fof/kd mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk bl vk/kkj ij pqukSrh nh gS fd olh;r esa mYysf[kr lEifRr eksVwth dks vius firk ls izkIr gqbZ Fkh] vr% la;qDr ifjokj dh Fkh vkSj eksVwth dks bl lEifRr dks olh;r djus dk vf/kdkj ugha FkkA ;g Hkh vkifRr yh x;h fd dfFkr olh;r fu"iknu ds le; eksVwth 'kkjhfjd o [2025:RJ-JP:36217] (4 of 7) [CSA-406/2024] ekufld :i ls LoLFk fpRr ugha FksA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ckn fopkj.k [email protected] dk okn [kkfjt fd;s ftldh iqf"V fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk dh x;hA fo}ku vf/koDrk oknhx.k dk fuosnu gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ;g olh;r /kkjk 90 Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e esa of.kZr mi/kkj.kk ds vk/kkj ij izekf.kr ekuh gS] tcfd olh;r ds ekeys esa lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 90 ds izko/kku vkd`"V ugha gksrs gSa vkSj bl laca/k esa olh;r ds lE;d fu"iknu dks izfroknh i{k dh vksj ls izekf.kr fd;k tkuk vko';d Fkk] vius rdksaZ ds leFkZu esa Ramesh Verma (D) tr. L.Rs. Vs. Lajesh Saxena (D) by L.Rs. and Ors. (2017) 1 SCC 257, Ashutosh Samanta (D) by L.Rs. & Ors. Vs. SM. Ranjan Bala Dasi & Ors. AIR (2023) SC 1422 rFkk Banwarilal Vs. Datturam AIR 2012 Raj. 87 izLrqr djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k fd fo}ku fopkj.k rFkk vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk lE;d :i ls fof/kd izko/kkuksa ij fopkj ugha dj xaHkhj fof/kd =qfV dkfjr dh gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g vihy Lohdkj fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh i{k dh vksj ls Metpalli Lasum Bai (Since Dead) and Ors. Vs. Metapalli Muthaih (D) by Lrs. 2025 SCC (Online) SC 1488 izLrqr djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k fd tgka olh;r iathd`r gks rks ,slh olh;r ds ln~Hkkfod gksus dh mi/kkj.kk yh tkosxhA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd olh;r ds vuqizekf.kd lk{kh fu;kt eksgEen dh e`R;q gks tkus ls mlds iq= ;klhu ¼Mh-MCyw&4½ }kjk bl olh;r ij vius firk ds gLrk{kj gksuk izekf.kr fd;k gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu jgk gS fd olh;r fnukad 17-04-1963 dh gS] ftldh tkudkjh 'kq: ls oknh dks Fkh] ysfdu mlds ckotwn fnukad 21-10-1993 dks vFkkZr 30 o"kZ i'pkr okn izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] tks ln~Hkkfod ugha gS] vUr esa ;g rdZ fn;k fd fo}ku fopkj.k rFkk vihyh; U;k;ky; dk fu"d"kZ leorhZ gS rFkk mBk;s x;s fcUnq f}rh; vihy ds Ldksi esa ugha vkrs gSaA [2025:RJ-JP:36217] (5 of 7) [CSA-406/2024] nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds izdk'k esa iqu% vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA oknh ds i{k esa vfHkdfFkr vkSj mudh lk{; ds vuqlkj fnukad 17-04-1963 dks olh;r fu"ikfnr gksuk rFkk iathd`r gksuk fooknjfgr gSA oknh dh izFke vkifRr ;g jgh gS fd olh;r esa mYysf[kr lEifRr olh;rdrkZ eksVwth ds firk dh Fkh vkSj eksVwth dks olh;r djus dk vf/kdkj ugha Fkk] ysfdu mDr lEifRr eksVwth ds firk vtqZu dh jgh gks] ,slh dksbZ lk{; vfHkys[k ij ugha jgh gSA ;klhu ¼Mh-MCyw&4½ us vuqizekf.kr lk{kh vFkkZr vius firk ds gLrk{kjksa dks bl olh;r ij gksuk dFku fd;k gS] nLrkost izekf.kr gS vkSj mijksDr lHkh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks fopkj esa ysus ds mijkUr fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk oknh dk okn [kkfjt fd;k gS] ftldh iqf"V fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk dh x;h gSA 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 bUQsjsUl gks] ,slk n`f"Vxr ugha gksrk gSA 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 gS A bl laca/k esa AIR 2008 SC 380 Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigda Laxmi and Anr. ds iSjk la[;k 13 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;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 refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the [2025:RJ-JP:36217] (6 of 7) [CSA-406/2024] evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding." nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us izdj.k ds rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa] Lohd`fr ,oa fof/k dk lgh izdkj ls foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k dj oknhx.k dk okn fujLr fd;k gS A f}rh; vihy esa lk{; dks foLr`r :i ls iqu% foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k dh Hkh vko';drk ugha gS A bl laca/k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Gurnam Singh vs. Lehna Singh 2019 7 SCC 641 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh gS fd f}rh; vihy esa rF;ksa ds fcUnq ij lk{; dk fo'ys"k.k o iqu% fo'ys"k.k vuqKs; ugha gS rFkk ewy :i ls tgka fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u vUrxZzLr gks] mu ekeyksa esa /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- ds vuqlkj f}rh; vihy esa mPp U;k;ky; viuh {ks=kf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx dj ldrk gS] bl 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." blh izdkj Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwai (Dead) by L.Rs AIR 2001 SC 965 ds iSjk la[;k&12 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %& " 12. The phrase 'substantial question of law', as occurring in the amended Section 100 is not defined in the Code. The word [2025:RJ-JP:36217] (7 of 7) [CSA-406/2024] 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......" mYys[kuh; gS fd nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk oknhx.k dk okn fujLr fd, tkus ds laca/k esa vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh ij vk/kkfjr gSa vkSj bl laca/k esa nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr lk{; dk lgh ewY;kadu o fo'ys"k.k fd;k gSA 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 ugha gksus ls o bl f}rh; vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ iz'u vFkok 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 Mittal /7 (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J