Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 380 (RAJ)

Singara Singh v. Mahendra Singh

2021-02-15

ARUN BHANSALI

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Hanumangarh and judgment & decree dated 05.02.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Hanumangarh, whereby the suit filed by respondent Kashmir Kaur has been decreed for permanent injunction & possession and the appeal filed by the appellant has been rejected, respectively. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff with the averments that a patta dated 25.06.1986 was issued to her, based on which, she was in possession of the plot in question. It was alleged that the plaintiff had gone out for attending a marriage for 2-3 days, when defendant alongwith his sons Harpal Singh and Gurdev trespassed over the plot and after digging soak pit, constructed toilet and boundary around the same. When they were prevented from raising construction, the same led to altercation, the information was given to the police station. It was claimed that the plot was owned by the plaintiff, was of her possession and as such, she was entitled to permanent injunction and possession. 3. The averments made in the plaint were contested by the defendant. It was alleged that the patta dated 25.06.1986 was fraudulent and concocted. The plaintiff was not in possession of the plot and the same was owned by the defendant, whereon he has constructed the soak pit. It was claimed that the market value of the plot was Rs.2 lakh and as such, suit has been wrongly valued. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. The trial court framed eight issues. 5. On behalf of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined and one document was exhibited. 6. On behalf of the defendant, two witnesses were examined and one document was exhibited. 7. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that while the plaintiff is in possession of a patta of the disputed land, the defendant was not having any document qua the plot of land, though in the cross-examination, the defendant claimed that the plot was allotted to them based on old possession. The court also came to the conclusion that it was apparent that in absence of the plaintiff, the defendant trespassed over the plot and raised construction. 8. The court also came to the conclusion that it was apparent that in absence of the plaintiff, the defendant trespassed over the plot and raised construction. 8. The issues pertaining to the patta in question being fraudulent and the plot being unconnected with the patta were also decided against the defendant. The issues in relation to the patta were also held against the defendant and consequently, the impugned decree was passed decreeing the suit. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court did not call for any interference and consequently, dismissed the appeal. 10. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the two courts below committed error in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. Submissions were made that it was the specific case of the appellant that the patta in question was fraudulent and concocted and in this regard he had produced Ex.-A/l, which clearly reflected that no record was available with the Gram Panchayat and as such, it was apparent that the patta in question was fraudulent and therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. 11. Submissions were made that the appeal gives rise to substantial question of law and therefore, the same deserves to be admitted. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions. 13. It was submitted that the two courts below have concurrently recorded findings of fact, which cannot be interfered in the second appeal. Reliance was placed on C. Doddanarayana Reddy v. C. Jayarama Reddy : AIR 2020 SC 1912 . I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. A bare perusal of the findings recorded by the two courts below reveal that both have concurrently found the existence of patta in favour of the plaintiff and that the defendant had trespassed over the plot in question and consequently, passed / upheld by the decree. 15. 14. A bare perusal of the findings recorded by the two courts below reveal that both have concurrently found the existence of patta in favour of the plaintiff and that the defendant had trespassed over the plot in question and consequently, passed / upheld by the decree. 15. The submissions made based on Ex.-A/1, which is an endorsement made by the Gram Sewak and Officiating Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and counter signed by the Sarpanch indicating that in the record of the Gram Panchayat, map and the patta bahi were not available and therefore, it was not possible to give the information are of no avail to the appellant. 16. The endorsement was made on the following application made by the appellant :- 17. A perusal of the application, indicates that the appellant sought a report in relation to patta dated 25.06.1986 of abadi land given to Kashmir Kaur W/o Karnail Singh. No further particulars as such were indicated and as such, on such a laconic application, the endorsement made by Gram Sewak, cannot be construed to mean that the patta in question was fraudulent and/or concocted as alleged. 18. In view thereof, the submissions sought to be raised by learned counsel for the appellant even otherwise have no substance. 19. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below on factual aspects of the matter, the same does not give rise to any substantial question of law. There is no substance in the second appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.