Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1865 (RAJ)

Sat Bai v. Nagar Palika Mandal, Jaisalmer

2011-09-01

KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This S.B. Civil second appeal has been filed by Smt.Sat Bai w/o Khudu Khan @ Khuda Bux, b/c Musalman r/o village Chhatrail, Jaisalmer against the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2007 passed by the District Judge, Jaisalmer in civil appeal (decree) No.09/2006. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this second appeal are that the appellant plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and perpetual injunction against the respondent-defendants before the court of civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jaisalmer with the averments that her plot measuring 25 X 50 ft. is situated near Geeta Ashram, Jaisalmer. It is stated that her uncle Jumme Khan, through a registered gift deed dated 26.1.1997, had gifted the said plot to her. Jumme Khan had already obtained the permission for construction over the said plot after depositing a sum of Rs. 28,125/and Rs. 235/- respectively and construction was raised over 24x48 ft. of the said plot. After taking possession, the plaintiff applied for permission to complete the construction but the defendants tried to demolish the construction and the defendants issued show cause notice to the plaintiff on 13.08.2002. The plaintiff appellant prayed for permanent and perpetual injunction against the defendants. The defendants in their written statement denied the legal regularisation in favour of Jumme Khan and alleged that one Executive Officer Narayan Singh, illegally accepted the money and regularised the long possession in favour of Jumme Khan and also illegally passed the site plan and further averred that no gift can be made in favour of the plaintiff. After perusal of the pleadings of the parities, the learned trial court framed four issues:- "1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent and perpetual injunction against the defendants over the land as prayed in para No.3 of the suit filed by the plaintiff ? - Plaintiff. 2. Whether suit is not maintainable as stated in para No.1 to 4 of the written statement-Defendants. 3. Whether defendants are entitled for costs of Rs. 25,000/- from the plaintiff-Defendants. 4. Relief. " 3. The plaintiff got examined 3 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents in support of the suit. In rebuttal, the defendants produced and examined 1 witness and exhibited 1 to 22-A documents. The learned trial court, vide its order dated 27.07.2006, decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and issue No.2 and 3 were decided against the defendants. Relief. " 3. The plaintiff got examined 3 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents in support of the suit. In rebuttal, the defendants produced and examined 1 witness and exhibited 1 to 22-A documents. The learned trial court, vide its order dated 27.07.2006, decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and issue No.2 and 3 were decided against the defendants. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendants filed regular first appeal before the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer who allowed the appeal in part, vide its judgment and decree dated 22.02.2007. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 22.02.2007, the appellant has preferred this second appeal. 4. Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned first appellate court has gravely erred in passing the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2007 by which the finding of the trial court has been reversed to some extent. 5. The learned first appellate court has failed to consider the fact that after obtaining earlier permission, the appellant was doing the repair work. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the appellate court, while considering the finding regarding the construction against permission, failed to consider the evidence produced by the defendant respondent but only in casual manner disturbed the finding of the trial court on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Though no definite finding has been given by the learned first appellate court but it has been left open for the defendants to take step as per their mercy. Hence such type of finding is illegal, against law and is liable to be set aside. 6. Counsel for the appellant also contended that the defendant failed to prove this fact that the plaintiff appellant raised any construction against the permission. Counsel further contended that the learned appellate court ordered in its judgment dated 22.02.2007 that any construction raised by the appellant, without the permission, can be removed the defendant respondent of this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant proposed the following substantial questions of law:- " (i) Whether the learned first appellate court is justified in disturbing the finding on issues given by the learned trial court without foundation or evidence ? (ii) Whether the learned first appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction while giving liberty to the defendants for taking action against the plaintiff on the issue which was not pleaded, prayed or proved by the defendants ? (ii) Whether the learned first appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction while giving liberty to the defendants for taking action against the plaintiff on the issue which was not pleaded, prayed or proved by the defendants ? (iii) Whether the learned first appellate court travelled beyond the subject matter and issue in question while passing the appellate decree by which the learned appellate court modified the decree of trial court to the extent of liberty for taking action against the plaintiff ? (iv) Any other substantial question of law which Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly be formulated." 7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage of the appeal. 8. The learned trial court, while deciding the suit decreed the suit of the appellant for permanent injunction and further restraining the Municipal Board, Jaisalmer not to demolish any property used for the residential purpose of the appellant. While deciding the first appeal the learned appellate court held in para No.28 that if any construction is raised by the present appellant, in violation of the construction permission dated 26.03.1997 then the Municipal Board is entitled to abolish that construction and further in the operative portion held that Municipal Board has a right to remove that construction which is in violation of the order dated 26.03.1997. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court has not arrived at the finding that the construction raised by the appellant was in violation of the permission dated 26.03.1997 and in the absence of such findings, no such order can be passed because this order has been passed on the basis of imagination that if any construction has been raised by the present appellant, in violation of the permission dated 26.03.1997, then it can be removed. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on this issue. 11. The implied sense of the finding of the learned first appellate court in para No.28 and 39 (2) is that the Municipal Council can act as per law, in case of any violation of the permission order dated 26.03.1997. It conveys the sense that Municipal Board may act as per law in case of violation of permission. 11. The implied sense of the finding of the learned first appellate court in para No.28 and 39 (2) is that the Municipal Council can act as per law, in case of any violation of the permission order dated 26.03.1997. It conveys the sense that Municipal Board may act as per law in case of violation of permission. The trial court as well as the first appellate court decided all the issues after considering the evidence on record and both the courts have arrived at the conclusion that from the evidence of the present plaintiff appellant, it is well proved that the plaintiff appellant is in possession of the property since last 20 years and issue No.2 and 3 were decided by the learned trial court and the first appellate court against the defendant respondents. The judgment passed by the learned trial court and partly affirmed by the learned first appellate court, does not suffer from any illegality and irregularity, therefore, the order of the learned first appellate court is affirmed and no substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. 12. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed at admission stage.Appeal Dismissed. *******