[2023/RJJP/005705]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 247/2020

Sudamaram S/o Shri Sabulal, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Baran

Tehsil And District Baran

----Appellant

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Baran

District Baran

2.

Nagarpalika Baran, Through Chairman Nagarpalika Baran

District Baran

3.

The Then Gram Panchayat Sundlak, Through Chief

Executive Officer Baran

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Shri Santosh Kumar Jain

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Judgment

04/04/2023

This civil second appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful

appellant/plaintiff (for brevity-`the plaintiff’) against the

judgement and decree dated 9.1.2020 passed by learned

Additional District Judge no.2, Baran (for brevity-`the learned

appellate court’) whereby, while dismissing the civil first appeal

no.1/2017 (CIS No.14/2016), the judgement and decree dated

15.3.2016 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Baran (for brevity-`the trial court’) dismissing the civil suit

no.47/2015 filed for permanent and mandatory injunction, has

been affirmed.

[2023/RJJP/005705]

(2 of 4)

[CSA-247/2020]

The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for

mandatory

and

permanent

injunction

against

the

respondents/defendants (for brevity-the defendants’) with the

averments that his father late Shri Sabu Lal was issued a patta

dated 27.6.1978 by the defendant no.3, the Gram Panchayat

Sundlak for a piece of land measuring 50 ft x 50 ft in Village

Gajanpura. It was stated that his father raised construction of a

boundary wall around the plot and after his death, it was under

the plaintiff’s ownership and possession. It was averred that for

registration of patta and for seeking permission to raise

construction thereupon, the plaintiff requested the defendants on

several occasions but no heed was paid. It was alleged that some

miscreant elements wanted to interfere in his right to use and

occupy the subject property. Therefore, the decree of mandatory

and permanent injunction was prayed for.

The defendants no.1 and 3 in their joint written statement

submitted that the Gram Panchayat Sundlak has never issued any

patta of the subject land in favour of late father of the plaintiff. It

was stated that the patta produced by the plaintiff was forged and

fabricated. It was further averred that the dispute of the subject

property was in between the plaintiff and Shri Ram Gopal.

The defendant no.2 in its written statement submitted that

the plaintiff never submitted any title document with it.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, seven issues were

framed including relief. After recording oral as well as

documentary evidence of the plaintiff, the learned trial court

dismissed the suit vide its judgement and decree dated 15.3.2016

[2023/RJJP/005705]

(3 of 4)

[CSA-247/2020]

which has been upheld and affirmed by the learned appellate court

vide its judgement and decree dated 9.1.2020.

Assailing the judgement and decree dated 9.1.2020, the

learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned court

erred in dismissing the suit inasmuch as he was able to establish

his title and possession over the subject property from the oral as

well as documentary evidence on record. He, therefore, prayed

that the civil second appeal be allowed, the judgement and decree

dated 9.1.2020 be quashed and set aside and the suit filed by him

be decreed.

Heard. Considered.

While deciding the issue no.1, the learned trial court has

recorded a categorical finding, on the basis of oral as well as

documentary evidence on record, that the patta of the subject

land (Ex.1) was stated to be issued by the Sarpanch of Gram

Panchayat Sundlak in his personal capacity which, even otherwise

also, for want of registration as per Section 17 of the Registration

Act,