Years, R/o Sirohi, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.) v. Gram Panchayat Sirohi, Through Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sirohi, Tehsil Niwai Distr

----Appellants/Defendants Versus Gram Panchayat Sirohi, Through Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Sirohi, Tehsil Niwai District Tonk, Rajasthan ----Respondent/Plaintiff For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Ms. Poonam Mishra for Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 11/08/2025 Judgment The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2018 passed by the District Judge, Tonk (Rajasthan) (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in appeal No. 31/2011 whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Nivai, Tonk in civil suit No. 32/2001 (65/2000) by which the respondent- plaintiff’s (for short ‘the plaintiff’) suit has been decreed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants mentioning therein that the land in question is in the ownership [2025:RJ-JP:30931] (2 of 4) [CSA-461/2018] and title of the Gram Panchayat, Sirohi, which measures 65 feet long and to the width of 20.6 feet from eastern side and 34 feet from western side, which is shown in the map annexed with the plaint in red color. Defendants took the land from Gram Panchayat on token. It was directed that the defendants would never open any gate, window and drains on the northern side of the land. Plaintiff in its plaint contended that the defendants had constructed a structure on the disputed land. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that disputed land was purchased by the grand-father of the defendants in the year 1999 from Rodu Jatt. They had possession for more than 50 years but in order to avoid unnecessary harassment and due to election rivalry, the defendants moved an application before the Panchayat to take the land on token. They had not raised any construction on the said land. 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 okni= ds en la[;k ,d esa of.kZr o layXu uD’ks esa ekdZ d- [k- x- ?k- ls iznf’kZr xzke iapk;r fljksgh ds LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; dk Hkw[k.M gSA 2- vk;k mDr Hkw[k.M ds nf{k.k dh vksj fLFkr Hkwfe ekdZ x/k p N xzke iapk;r usokn i= dh en la[;k 3 o 4 esa of.kZr vuqlkj fnukad 27-3-87 ds fu.kZ; esa vafdr’krksZ ds vuqlkj izfroknhx.k dks nh FkhA 3- vk;k izfroknhx.k Lo;a ds izkFkZuki= fnukad 4-2-87 o 27-3-87 dh vogsyuk dj xzke iapk;r dh Hkwfe ekdZ d- [k- x- ?k- esa tcju njokts] f[kM+dh] ukys ijukys] fudkyus ij vkeknk gS\ [2025:RJ-JP:30931] (3 of 4) [CSA-461/2018] 4- vk;k 27-3-87 dk iapk;r dk fu.kZ; izfroknhx.k dks /kks[kk nsdj izfroknhx.k dh Lo;a dh Hkwfe dks iapk;r dh crkdj xyr djok;k gS] fookfnr Hkwfe Lo;a izfroknhx.k ds ckck HkS:yky dh lEor~ 1999 ls dz;’kqnk gS\ 5- vuqrks"k\” To prove its case, plaintiff got examined as PW-1- Jhamri Devi, PW-2 Kedar Prasad and got exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1- Gajanand and got exhibited a document. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.08.2011, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Defendants challenged the said judgment and decree dated

06.08.2011 passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 02.06.2018 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate court have committed an error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff as well as in dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants. Learned counsel further submits that both the courts below had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. Land in question was purchased by the grand-father of the defendants from Rodu Jatt on a consideration of Rs. 33/-. Learned trial Court as well as the first appellate court have not appreciated the document Ex.A-1 in right perspective. So, the judgments passed by both the courts below be set aside and the present second appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:30931] (4 of 4) [CSA-461/2018] Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and submitted that the land in question belongs to Gram Panchayat. Said land was given on token to the defendants on the condition that they would not raise any construction on it but they wanted to open the gate, window and Nala and Parnala on the northern side of the land. So, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have not committed any error in decreeing the suit as well as in dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants as well as counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the land in question was given on token to the defendants with the condition that they would not construct any structure on it. So, the defendants are bound by the document Ex.2. So, in my considered opinion, learned trial Court as well as the first appellate court have not committed any error in decreeing the suit as well as in dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants. So, the present 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/46 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J