A civil court has jurisdiction to try a suit for injunction against public nuisance even if the dispute relates to agricultural land, as long as the suit is not for khatedari rights or any revenue dispute.

JUDGMENT

Ramchandra Singh Jhala, J —This second appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 21.1.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.3, Chittorgarh in Civil First Appeal No.97/2013 whereby the appeal filed by the present appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 16.5.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.2, Chittorgarh in Civil Suit No.29/2010 has been affirmed.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 24.7.2008, the respondent-plaintiffs No.1 to 5 filed a civil suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents No.6 to 10 and the present appellant stating therein that the respondent-plaintiffs are villagers of Village Pal, Tehsil and District Chittorgarh, who are using the water of pond constructed by Maharana of Mewar for drinking and irrigation purpose for villagers of village Pal and the villagers are continuously performing Puja and worship idols of temples existing at bank of pond, but the defendants are causing nuisance by way of changing structure and demolishing temples resulting which religious sentiments got hurt and are deprived from natural water resource, therefore, prayed to decree the suit after restraining the defendants from operating mining activities and from changing structure / demolishing the temples.

3. The respondent-defendant State submitted written statement stating therein that land in question in respect of which injunction has been sought actually belongs to khatedar tenants and in absence of those affected parties suit is not maintainable and no illegal activities has been carried out at the site, hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. The appellant-defendant, who is one of the khatedars of the agriculture land of khasra No.379/1 and 378, filed written statement stating therein that the appellant and his other family members are khatedar tenants of the land in question, therefore, no person has right to seek injunction against them as they are having title and possession over the property. It is also stated that the land in question is of his family members' private property.

4. On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned trial court framed following issues:-

IMAGe 1

5. Learned trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record decided the issues No.1 to 3 in favour of plaintiffs and issues No.4, 5, 6 and 7 against the defendants and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 16.5.2013 and restrained the defendants from operating mining activities and so also not to demolish wall of pond and temple.

6. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 16.5.2013 of the trial court, the appellant filed a regular first appeal before the learned first appellate court and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.1.2017 while affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.5.2013 passed by the learned trial court.

7. Being aggrieved with the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, the appellant has preferred the instant second appeal before this Court.

8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant for admission of this appeal.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below deserve to be quashed and set aside because the same have been passed without considering the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned both the courts below have committed grave error while decreeing the suit and rejecting the appeal and failed to appreciate that plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove facts involved in issue No.1 that pond was constructed by Maharana of Mewar and water pond is used for drinking and irrigation purpose by the villagers but the courts below without any evidence on the issue, decided the same in their favour and passed injunction decree against the appellant.

10. It is further contended that bo