Nagar Palika, Raisinghnagar vs Rameshwar Lal

Nagar Palika Raisinghnagar ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Rameshwar Lal & Anr. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed by the defendant against

the final judgment and order dated 03.11.2006

passed by the High Court of Judicature for

Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Regular Second

Appeal No.70 of 1989 whereby the High Court

dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant and

affirmed the judgment/decree passed by the first

Signature Not Verified Appellate Court dated 17.04.1989 in Appeal Civil Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA Date: 2017.10.11 16:07:07 IST Reason: No. 19 of 1988 arising out of Civil Suit No.28 of

1 1983 decided on 06.09.1988 passed by the Munsif

and Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar.

2) Facts of the case are simple so also the point

involved in the appeal. They, however, need

mention in brief infra.

3) The appellant is Nagar Palika Raisinghnagar

(Rajasthan). The appellant is the defendant

whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in the

aforementioned civil suit out of which this appeal

arises.

4) The dispute relates to a small piece of land

(100x100 sq. ft.) situated at Gaushala Block, Ward

No.10 (earlier known as ‘E Block’), Raisingh Nagar

(hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”).

5) The respondent (plaintiff) claiming to be the

holder and in possession of the suit land on the

strength of Patta issued in favour of his grand father

- Pokhar Ram by the appellant herein way back in

the year 1957 vide Resolution No.7 dated

13.02.1957 filed a suit against the appellant out of

2 which this appeal arises seeking permanent

injunction restraining the appellant from

dispossessing him from the suit land.

6) In substance, the case of the respondent, as

set out in the plaint, was that the appellant - Nagar

Palika had originally allotted the suit land to the

respondent’s grandfather - Pokhar Ram as back as

in 1957 against the payment of consideration which

had duly paid by Pokhar Ram to the appellant vide

receipt No.51 dated 18.03.1957.

7) It was alleged that Pokhar Ram then

constructed his hut on the suit land and continued

to live therein during his lifetime. On his death, the

respondent's father continued to live therein during

his lifetime and then on his death, the respondent

inherited the suit land/hut and continued to remain

in its occupation till the date of filing of the suit.

8) According to the respondent, the need to file

the suit arose because he had some apprehension

that the appellant-Nagar Palika which had taken

3 out a drive to oust some encroachers from the land

belonging to Nagar Palika in the Municipal area may

dispossess the respondent also from the suit land

treating him as an encroacher on the suit land. It

was for this reason, the respondent filed the civil

suit to seek permanent injunction against the

appellant in relation to the suit land on the strength

of Patta already granted in favour of his

predecessor-in-title by the appellant.

9) The appellant filed its written statement.

While denying the respondent's claim, the appellant

inter alia alleged that the respondent's grandfather

was given some other land, that the grant so made

in relation to the said land was cancelled and the

money received was also refunded to him, that the

suit land is a Nagar Palika land and the respondent

with the help of some employees of the Nagar Palika

got the suit land un-authorizedly allotted to him,

and lastly, the suit land is needed for public

purpose.

4

10) Issues were framed. Parties adduced evidence.

The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 06.09.1988,

dismissed the suit. The respondent (plaintiff), felt

aggrieved, filed first appeal before the First Appellate

Court. The First Appellate Court, vide

judgment/decree dated 17.04.1989, allowed the

appeal and while setting aside of the

judgment/decree of the Trial Court decreed the

respondent's suit and accordingly granted

permanent injunction, as prayed by the respondent,

against the appellant in relation to the suit land.

11) The First Appellate Court held that the

respondent's grandfather was granted Patta in

relation to the suit land by the appellant; that the

appellant failed to prove that it was cancelled and

pursuant thereto the respondent's predecessor

refunded the amount, that the Patta granted was in

relation to the suit land, that the respondent was in

possession of the suit land.

5

12) The appellant filed second appeal before the

High Court. The High Court, by impugned

judgment, dismissed the appeal and upheld the

judgment/decree of the First Appellate Court giving

rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special

leave before this Court by the defendant, i.e., Nagar

Palika.

13) Heard Mr. Puneet Jain, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Dushyant Parashar, learned

counsel for the respondent.

14) Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

find no merit in the appeal.

15) This is a case, which does not involve any

question of law much less substantial question of

law what to say any question relating to public

importance.

16) When two Courts, namely, First Appellate

Court and the High Court found no merit in the

appeal and confirmed the findings of fact then, in

6 our opinion, such concurrent findings are binding

on this Court.

17) It is more so when such findings are neither

found to be against the pleadings nor the evidence

nor any provisions of law and nor so found perverse

to the extent that no judicial person can ever so

record.

18) It is not in dispute as now one can say that the

respondent's predecessor-in-title was granted Patta

in relation to the suit land on payment. It is also

not in dispute that the respondent is the grandson

of original allottee. It is also not in dispute that the

appellant (defendant) though took a stand that the

Patta in question was cancelled and money returned

but the appellant could not prove it with the aid of

any evidence. It is also not in dispute that though

the appellant took a stand that the Patta granted to

the respondent's predecessor-in-title did not relate

to the suit land but of some other land, the

appellant also failed to prove even this fact with the

7 aid of any evidence.

19) The aforementioned stand taken by the

appellant, in our view, was required to be proved by

the appellant because the burden to prove these

facts was on them but they failed to prove any of the

issues though raised.

20) In our opinion, the respondent (plaintiff) was

able to make out all the three necessary ingredients

for grant of permanent injunction with the aid of

evidence, namely, the prima facie case, the balance

of convenience and the irreparable loss and injury,

if the injunction is not granted to him. Since the

respondent held a Patta of the suit land, there was a

prima facie case in his favour. Secondly, he was

also held to be in possession of the suit land and

hence the other two ingredients, namely, the

balance of convenience and irreparable loss and

injury, were also in his favour. It is for these

reasons, in our view, the plaintiff was rightly held

entitled to claim permanent injunction against the

8 appellant (defendant) in relation to the suit land.

21) We, therefore, find no ground to interfere in

any of the factual findings recorded by the two

Courts below nor we find any merit in any of the

arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant,

which were only based on facts and evidence.

22) This Court cannot appreciate the evidence

again de novo while hearing this appeal. Though it

is not permissible, yet we probe the evidence with a

view to find out any error in the impugned judgment

calling our interference. We, however, find it none.

23) In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no

merit in the appeal, which fails and is accordingly

dismissed.

………...................................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL]

…...……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi;

October 10, 2017

9 ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.2 SECTION XV (For Judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 10833/2010

NAGAR PALIKA RAISINGHNAGAR Appellant(s)

VERSUS

RAMESHWAR LAL & ANR. Respondent(s)

Date : 10-10-2017 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Surya Kant, AOR

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and His Lordship.

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(NEETU KHAJURIA) (ASHA SONI) COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file

10