Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2640 (RAJ)

L. Rs. of Rama v. L. Rs. of Ganesh Mal

2008-12-02

VINEET KOTHARI

body2008
Hon'ble Dr. KOTHARI, J.—Pitched against the concurrent judgments and decrees of Courts below, the defendants are before this Court in the present second appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. in suit for possession filed by the plaintiffs. 2. The First Appellate Court by its judgment and decree dt. 6.11.2007 upheld the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dt. 5.2.2003 whereby the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff Ganesh Mal represented through his L.Rs. Chand Mal etc. and held that the suit property, namely, plot No. 97 was situated in Araji Khasra No. 123/5 at Ganesh Marg, Sumerpur, belonging to the plaintiffs. 3. While deciding issue Nos. 1, 3 and 4 jointly, the learned trial Court elaborately discussing the evidence documentary as well as oral held that the defendant Rama had forcibly possessed the land of the plaintiff situated at Khasra No. 123/5. Various statements of PW.1 Chandan Mal, PW.2 Ratan Lal PW.3 Mangal, PW.4 Mangi Lal and PW.5 Ashrar Khan, Inspector of the Revenue Department were discussed in detail by the learned trial Court before arriving at the aforesaid findings. The learned trial Court also found that on comparison of para No. 5 of the written statement of the defendant as well as statement of DW-1 Pratap Chand, it was clear that the defendant had stated in his statement recorded on 5.3.2002 before the learned trial Court that he had not read his written statement before signing it and therefore, he could not state that neighbourhood given in the sale-deed Ex. 5 was wrong. In fact in para 5 of the written statement, it was stated by the defendant that Gopal s/o Bhimaji had sold on 26.6.1973 the property in favour of the defendant No. 2 at the instance of defendant No. 1 and in the said sale-deed Ex. 5, in the neightbourhood shown in the said sale-deed, on the written side of the suit land, the defendant had purchased land from Gopal s/o Bhimaji on 26.6.1973. Thus, the Court arrived at the finding that the defendants were in illegal possession of the suit land situated in Khasra No. 123/5. 4. The First Appellate Court again discussing the said relevant evidence affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court by its judgment dt. Thus, the Court arrived at the finding that the defendants were in illegal possession of the suit land situated in Khasra No. 123/5. 4. The First Appellate Court again discussing the said relevant evidence affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court by its judgment dt. 6.11.2007, thus, both the Courts below on the basis of evidence available before them arrived at the findings that the suit laid did not belong to the defendant and the land which was purchased by them on 26.6.1973 was also sold by them and, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to claim possession of the suit land from the defendants. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned judgments and evidence from the record, this Court is satisfied that both the Courts below have addressed relevant evidence and there is neither any misreading of evidence nor the findings of Courts below can be said to be perverse in any manner. There was nothing to dislodge the said findings which could be canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants-defendants. 6. In the opinion of this Court, no substantial questions of law arise in the present second appeal and same is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.