HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8463/2022

1.

Bhagwan Sahai Sharma S/o Shri Ramswaroop Sharma,

Aged About 60 Years,

2.

Nemi Chand Sharma S/o Shri Mool Chand Sharma, Aged

About 45 Years,

3.

Naththu Sharma S/o Shri Hariram Sharma, Aged About

62 Years,

4.

Premchand Sharma S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma,

Aged About 49 Years,

All Resident Of Bada Wala Mohalla, Reni, Tehsil Reni,

District Alwar.

----Petitioners/Plaintiffs

Versus

1.

Bhagwan Das S/o Gangaram, Aged About 50 Years,

2.

Rohit S/o Shri Bhagwan Das, Aged About 22 Years,

3.

Rahul S/o Shri Bhagwan Das, Aged About 25 Years,

All Resident Of Kumhar Mohalla Reni, Tehsil Reni, District

Alwar.

4.

Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited,

Reni, Tehsil Reni, District Alwar.

5.

Junior Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Reni,

Tehsil Reni, District Alwar.

----Respondents/Defendants

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Vipul Kumar Jaiman

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

21/07/2022

The unsuccessful petitioners/plaintiffs (for brevity, ‘the

plaintiffs’) have filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India aggrieved against the order dated

(2 of 3)

[CW-8463/2022]

28.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,

Rajgarh, District Alwar dismissing the Civil Misc. Appeal No.9/2022

preferred against the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the

learned Civil Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar in Civil Misc. Case

No.46/16/2022 whereby, an application filed by the plaintiffs

under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Read with Section 151 CPC was

dismissed.

The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit

for permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants

stating therein that the respondents were trying to interfere with

their use and occupation of the subject property under their

ownership. Alongwith the suit, they also filed an application

seeking temporary injunction against the respondents with regard

to subject property. The learned trial Court has, vide its order

dated 25.04.2022, dismissed the temporary injunction application

filed by the plaintiffs which was unsuccessfully challenged by them

by way of a civil miscellaneous appeal which came to be dismissed

by the learned Additional District Judge vide its order dated

28.05.2022.

Assailing the findings, the sole contention advanced by

learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Court erred

in disbelieving on seventeen affidavits filed by them supporting

their contention that they were under ownership and possession of

the subject property. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition

be allowed, the order dated 28.05.2022 be quashed and set aside

and the temporary injunction application filed by them be allowed.

Heard. Considered.

(3 of 3)

[CW-8463/2022]

There are concurrent findings of the facts recorded by the

learned trial Court as also by the learned Appellate Court that not

only the plaintiffs have failed to establish their title over the

subject land even prima facie; but, they have also failed to

establish that the subject land is under their exclusive possession.

Rather, on the basis of material on record including the

Commissioner’s report prepared in presence of Halka Patwari, a

categorical finding has been recorded that the subject land was

part of the public way. It is also observed that in an agreement to

sale dated 16.02.2007 wherein, the plaintiff no.3, i.e, Nathuram

Sharma was one of the attesting witnesses, the subject property

has been shown to be fifteen feet public way. The learned

appellate Court has appreciated the affidavits submitted by

seventeen persons in support of plaintiffs’ contention but, has

disbelieved the same and this Court does not find any reason to

differ with such finding.