The court reaffirmed that without substantial questions of law, reappraisal of evidence is not permitted under Section 100 of the CPC.

ORDER

1. Instant second appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 challenging the judgment & decree dated 04.03.2020 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Appeal No.23/2019 titled as Ganeshnarayan Saini & Others Vs. Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, whereby the Appellate Court had dismissed the said appeal & affirmed the judgment & decree dated 17.09.2019 passed by the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Civil Suit No.29/2005 titled as Ganeshnarayan Saini & Others Vs. Nagar Nigam, Jaipur.

2. The appellants-plaintiffs had instituted a civil suit against the respondent-defendant seeking permanent injunction in respect of the disputed land alleging therein that their ancestral land was situated nearby 22 Godown, Jaipur and their ancestors were in possession of the land for more than 100 years and an electric connection was also obtained in year 1967 and their predecessors, namely Gulab Chand @ Gulla deposited a hasil on 16.06.1941 to the Rajasthan Sawai Jaipur and registration under the Shops & Establishment Act was also issued by the authority concerned, and the Municipality, Jaipur had also issued licence. Thereafter, license was issued in the name of 'Siyaram Bhojnalaya' in year, 1992. The appellants-plaintiffs are in possession of their ancestral property, which is neither part of the road nor part of any footpath nor belongs to the Municipal Corporation, inspite thereof, the Officers of the Municipal Corporation threatened the appellants for dispossession.

3. The said suit was opposed by the respondent-defendant by submitting a written-statement, denying the allegations and further contending inter-alia that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the disputed land for 100 years and they started running business only some time back on the illegally encroached public footpath measuring around 57x12 by the name of 'Siyaram Bhojnalya' for which the respondent has sent a notice to the plaintiffs asking him to produce documents regarding ownership and title but the plaintiffs did not provide any document.

4. The appellants-plaintiffs have filed rejoinder.

5. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit vide its judgment & decree dated 17.09.2019 against which the appellants-plaintiffs had preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court. The said appeal came to be dismissed vide its judgment and decree dated 04.03.2020. Hence, this appeal.

6. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-plaintiffs, has placed reliance upon the following judgments :- (i) Krishna Ram Mahale Vs. Shobha Venkat Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2097, (ii) NOIDA Vs. Desh Raj, (2010) 15 SCC 451, (iii) Ramdas Bansal Vs. Kharag Singh Baid, (2012) 2 SCC 548, (iv) State of Gujarat Vs. Allauddin Babumiya Shaikh, 1991 Supp.(1) SCC 146, (v) S. Noordeen Vs. S. Thiru Venkita Reddiar, (1996) 3 SCC 289, (vi) Anil Singh and another Vs. Naumi Yadav & Others, 2018 (1) CCC 761 (Allahabad) and (vii) Municipal Committee, Ratia District Fatehabad Vs. Gurmeet Singh, 2017 (2) CCC 257 (P&H) respectively.

7. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-plaintiffs and perused the judgments cited herein-above, it appears that both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the documents produced by the plaintiffs with regard to disputed land do not contain measurement of the land nor the boundaries nor does it contain any specific description of the property. Any of the documents produced by the plaintiffs do not contain total measurement & boundaries of the property, which was required to properly dispose of the dispute in the matter because, in the reply, the defence taken by the Nagar Nigam was that