[2026:RJ-JD:148]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 113/2023

1. Umrao Singh S/o Bhom Singh, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Jhupaghat, Tehsil And District Sirohi.

2. Lrs Of Radmal Singh, S/o Bhom Singh Ji Aged About Adult Resident Of Sirohi Tehsil District Sirohi, Presently Residing At Keral, Tehsil Shivganj, District Sirohi Through His Lrs-

2/1. Lash Kanwar W/o Late Radmal Singh Ji, Aged About 81 Years, Pesa Aram, Resident Keral, Tehsil Shivganj, District Sirohi.

2/2. Shaitan Singh S/o Radmal Singh Ji, Aged About 59 Years, Pesa Kheti, Resident Keral, Tehsil Shivganj, District Sirohi.

2/3. Balwant Singh S/o Radmal Singh Ji, Aged About 57 Years, Pesa Kheti-Business, Resident Keral, Tehsil Shivganj, District Sirohi.

2/4. Jagdish Singh S/o Radmal Singh Ji, Aged About 51 Years, Pesa Kheti, Resident Keral, Tehsil Shivganj, District Sirohi.

2/5. Anter Kanwar D/o Radmal Singh Ji, Aged About 49 Years, W/o Mevi Singh Ji, Pesa Home, Resident Of Savrada Tehsil Sojat Road, District Pali.

----Appellants Versus Neeru Bai D/o Shankar Singh, Aged Adult Resident Of Village Jhupaghat, District Sirohi.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mathur, Ms. Rachita Mathur and Mr. Harshit Goyal.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

06/01/2026

1. This civil second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the appellants-

plaintiffs against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.09.2022 passed by the District Judge, Sirohi in Civil First Appeal No.03/2021 (C.I.S. No. 03/2021) titled as “Umrao Singh & Anr. vs. Smt. Neeru Bai”, whereby first appeal filed by the appellants- plaintiffs has been dismissed and Judgment and Decree dated 27.07.2021 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sirohi in Civil Original Suit No.07/2014 (C.I.S. No. 1063/2014) titled as “Umrao Singh & anr. vs. Smt. Neeru Bai” dismissing suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the appellants-plaintiffs, has been affirmed.

2. The facts which are germane for the second appeal, in nutshell, are that plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction regarding a plot measuring 50 x 18 square feet totaling to 900 square feet, situated in front of their house at Jhupaghat, Sirohi. The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession of the plot based on a registered sale deed dated 04.04.1955 and stated that plot in question was closed with stone slabs to prevent encroachment. According to the plaintiffs, on 13.02.2014, defendant illegally removed stone slabs, entered the plot, erected a flag and began unauthorised construction of temple like structure, prompting filing of the suit for restraining further construction and removing what was already built. The plaintiffs alleged threats and abusive behavior by the defendant and contended that completion of construction or installation of idols would cause serious legal complications later.

3. The respondent-defendant denied all allegations, asserting that disputed plot was her ancestral property, in her family’s possession for last 60–70 years and was given to her father long ago. She disputed plaintiffs’ sale deed, claimed that the plaintiffs had no title and alleged that they fabricated documents to grab the land. The defendant maintained that access to the plot had always been through her house, that old structures existed on the plot, and that recent construction was only reconstruction on her own land. She also raised legal objections that suit was barred by limitation, beyond pecuniary jurisdiction and not maintainable due to lack of possession by the plaintiffs.

4. The trial court, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed as many as seven issues including issue relating to relief. Both the parties led oral as well as documentary evidence. Upon appreciation of evidence on record, learned trial court decided Issue Nos. 1 to 3 regarding ownership and possession of the suit property against