[2025:RJ-JP:45036]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 593/2019

1. Daulat Ram S/o Late Shri Banshi Lal Balai, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Jaipur Road, Madanganj Kishangarh, District Ajmer

2. Shankar Lal S/o Late Shri Banshi Lal Balai, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Jaipur Road, Madanganj Kishangarh, District Ajmer

3. Smt. Kanta Devi D/o Late Shri Banshi Lal Balai W/o Shri Lalchand Balai, At Present Resident Of Village Gudhamansingh Post Baisaya Raiwal

4. Smt. Tulsi Devi D/o Late Shri Banshi Lal Balai W/o Shri Hanuman, Aged About 46 Years, Jaipur Madanganj Kishangarh, District Ajmer ----Appellants Versus

1. Ram Kishore Gulaniya S/o Shri Ram Gulaniya, Resident Of Village Arani, Tehsil Arani Kishangarh, District Ajmer

2. Up Panjiyak Mahodaya, Kishangarh ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 620/2019

1. Daulat Ram S/o Late Shri Banshi Lal Balai, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Jaipur Road, Madanganj Kishangarh, District Ajmer

2. Shankar Lal S/o Late Shri Banshi Lal Balai, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Jaipur Road, Madanganj Kishangarh, District Ajmer

3. Smt. Kanta Devi D/o Late Shri Banshi Lal Balai W/o Shri Lalchand Balai, Aged About 49 Years, At Present Resident Of Village Gudhamansingh Post Baisaya Raiwal

4. Smt. Tulsi Devi D/o Late Shri Banshi Lal Balai W/o Shri Hanuman, Aged About 46 Years, Jaipur Madanganj Kishangarh, District Ajmer ----Appellants Versus

1. Ram Kishore Gulaniya S/o Shri Ram Gulaniya, Resident Of Village Arani, Tehsil Arani Kishangarh, District Ajmer

2. Up Panjiyak Mahodaya, Kishangarh ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinodi Lal Mathur, Adv.

Mr. Amit Kumar Dhawan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Kabra, Adv.

Ms. Preeti Soni,Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

Judgment / Order

10/11/2025

1- mijksDr nksuksa vihysa ,d gh oknxzLr lEifRr ls lca f/kr gSa] i{kdkj Hkh leku gS rFkk fookn fcUnq Hkh ,d gh gSa] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr nksuksa vihyksa ij ,d lkFk lquk tkdj ,d gh fu.kZ; ds ek/;e ls fuLrkfjr dh tk jgh gSaA

2- lqlxa r rF; ;g gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; ofj"B flfoy U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&1] fd'kux< ftyk&vtesj ds le{k oknh jkefd'kksj dh vksj ls ,d nhokuh okn 16@2010 izfroknh ca'khyky ds fo:) dCtk izkfIr ,oa e/;orhZ ykHk grs q izLrqr fd;k tks fnukad 30-04-2015 dks fMdzh gqvk] mlds fo:) izfroknh ca'khyky dh e`R;q gksus ij mlds fof/kd okfjlku nkSyr oxSjg dh vksj ls U;k;ky; vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k l[a ;k&1 fd'kux< ftyk&vtesj ds le{k vihy la[;k 08@2015 izLrqr dh tks fu.kZ; fnukad

17-09-2019 dks [kkfjt gqbZA

3- mijksDr nhokuh okn 16@2010 jkefd'kksj dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;s tkus ij ca'khyky dh vksj ls nhokuh okn la[;k 04@2011 ca'khyky cuke jkefd'kksj fodz; i= dks fujLr djokus rFkk LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ds vuqrks"k ds laca/k esa izLrqr fd;k tks fopkj.k U;k;ky; ofj"B flfoy U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&1] fd'kux< ftyk&vtesj }kjk fu.kZ; fnukad 28-04-2015 ds ek/;e ls [kkfjt fd;k x;k] ftlds fo:) ca'khyky ds fof/kd izfrfuf/kx.k }kjk izLrqr izFke vihy la[;k 17@2015 fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k l[a ;k&1 fd'kux< ftyk&vtesj }kjk fu.kZ; fnukad 17-09-2019 ds ek/;e ls [kkfjt dh x;hA

4- mijksDrkuqlkj nksuksa nkos vkSj vihy ca'khyky rFkk mlds fof/kd izfrfuf/kx.k ds fo:) fu.khZr gqbZ gSa] ftlls O;fFkr gksdj ;s nkus ksa vihysa ca'khyky ds fof/kd izfrfuf/kx.k nkSyrjke oxS0 dh vksj ls is'k dh x;h gSaA 5- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ rFkk izR;FkhZ i{k dh cgl lquhA pwafd ;s f}rh; flfoy vihy gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa tc rd fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u varoZfyr ugha gks] rc rd lquokbZ gsrq xzg.k ugha dh tk ldrh gSa rFkk fopkj.k o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk tks fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS] mlesa lkekU; :i ls gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA bl lca a/k esa ekuuh;

mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigda Laxmi and Anr. AIR 2008 SC 380 ds iSjk la[;k 13 esa fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS %&

"13. The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored mat