Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, C.J., Bhuwan Goyal, J.
Durga Shankar S/o Shri Birdhi Chand Purohit - Appellant
Versus
Thakurani Smt. Prem Kumari W/o Late Thakur Raj Singh and ors. – Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 51 of 1997
Decided On : 27-02-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. N.K. Maloo, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pratyush Sharma Mr. Amit Kuri, Mr. Shivam Mishra
For the Respondent:Mr. Anil Mehta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Yashodhar Pandey & Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, through V.C.
A claimant must present substantial evidence to prove ownership rights or assurances in land disputes, failing which their case will be dismissed.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 - Section 18 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 8, Order 13 Rule 2 - Dispute over land use and alleged assurances by landowner regarding public spaces in developed colony - Appellant's civil suit dismissed due to lack of evidence proving landowner's intent to surrender land for common use and absence of written assurances; the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish their case through substantial evidence, including official approvals and records from the municipal authorities. (Paras 1-28)
(B) The absence of specific denials of pleadings does not automatically result in admissions; the defendants' denial for want of knowledge was found sufficient in the context of the plaintiff's burden to prove their claims. (Paras 9.1-10.6)
(C) Evidence based on unsubstantiated claims and unsupported documents cannot form a basis for decrees related to land surrender or use; the trial court did not err in dismissing the application under Order 13 Rule 2 due to insufficient documentary proof. (Paras 10.6-10.12)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case establishing land development and plot sales. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants’ denial of plaintiffs' claims regarding thakur raj singh's assurances. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. appellant's arguments regarding procedural improprieties and evidence. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. affirmation of burden of proof on plaintiff and procedural obligations. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. importance of evidence and formal submissions in establishing land use. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. challenge to authenticity of evidence presented by plaintiffs. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. final judgment emphasizes non-proven claims related to land surrender. (Para 27) |
JUDGMENT :
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, C.J.
1. This appeal under Section 18 of the RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ORDINANCE 1949 is directed against the judgment/decree dated 29.05.1997 passed by the learned first appellate Court whereby, the appeal of the appellants has been dismissed and the judgment/decree of the trial Court has been affirmed, dismissing the suit of the appellant.
2. The appellants filed a civil suit no. 165/1967 [30/1995] on 17.03.1967 in the Court of Munsif (East) Jaipur City. Appellants/plaintiffs filed suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC in the nature of representative suit on the pleadings inter alia that Thakur Raj Singh, husband of defendant-Prem Kumari was Jagirdar of Thikana Chomu known as Chomu Compound/Chomu Bagh. Thakur Raj Singh intended to develop a new colony in the Chomu Bagh land and with this intention, he submitted map and layout plan before the Nagar Palika, Jaipur and Urban Development Trust, Jaipur. The assurance in writing was submitted that towards development of colony, proper arrangements for road, electricity, water connection and children park would be suitably made by surrendering land for such common use. On submission of such layout plan and assurance, permission for development of colony was sought. It was further pleaded that on the basis of the application and the map/layout plan submitted by Thakur Raj Singh, Municipality and UIT allowed construction and development with slight changes and modifications in the proposed map regarding width of the road. It was further pleaded that the portion of land described A, B, C, D, Circle X and Triangle Y in the map appended with the plaint were surrendered for public use and for the facility of the colony. According to the plaintiffs, in the map, A, B, C, D was proposed to be surrendered for development of garden, whereas, Circle X which was proposed to be surrendered for common use, comprised of a Shiv temple standing on a square shaped platform. Further pleading was that Thakur Raj Singh gave such assurance of development of colony and on such assurance, sold out plots to plaintiffs and other persons that area A, B, C, D, Circle X and Triangle Y and well, fountain, "hauj", fencing, temple and open spaces shall remain available for open use and the same will not be transferred. It was also assured that proper development of the colony by providing electricity, water facility, roads, children park would also be done. This was also described in the sale deeds of the plaintiffs and other purchasers. On such assurance, plaintiffs purchased plots No.D63 and D41. After Thakur Raj Singh died on 05.03.1963, the legal representatives-defendants no. 1 and 2, against the scheme of development of the colony and the written and oral assurance held out by Thakur Raj Singh with regard to land in dispute, have sold a part of the land comprised in Circle X and Triangle Y, as shown in the map, to defendants no. 3, 5 and 6 and are attempting to dispose off other part of the disputed land comprised in the area A, B, C, D, Circle X and Triangle Y. On such pleadings, plaintiffs prayed for declaration that the sale deed executed on 06.04.1966 in favour of defendants no. 3, 5 and 6 be declared as illegal and inoperative. Plaintiffs also prayed for decree of permanent injunction that defendants no. 1 and 2 be restrained from changing the nature of t
