HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 263/2017

1.

Tej Singh S/o Girraj, R/o Harnagar, Tehsil Bayana District

Bharatpur

2.

Dharam Singh S/o Girraj, R/o Harnagar, Tehsil Bayana

District Bharatpur

3.

Musmat Kistoori W/o Girraj, R/o Harnagar, Tehsil Bayana

District Bharatpur Deceased

3/1.

Smt. Santa Widow Of Nathi D/o Late Girraj, R/o Harnagar,

3/155 Nangla Dhakraan, Nai Ki Mandi, Agra

3/2.

Smt. Angoori W/o Kanhiyalal D/o Late Girraj, R/o Plot No.

26, New Ashok Nagar, Panchkuia, Agra

3/3.

Smt. Rama W/o Devi Singh D/o Late Shri Girraj, R/o

Shanker Colony, Police Lines Agra

----Appellants

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan Through District Collector, Bharatpur

2.

Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Bayana, Tehsil Bayana

3.

Gram Panchayat, Harnagar, Tehsil Bayana, District

Bharatpur

4.

Gram Panchayat, Vidyaari, Tehsil Bayana, District

Bharatpur

5.

Bal Singh S/o Girraj, R/o Harnagar, Tehsil Bayana District

Bharatpur

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Jai Kumar Yadav

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Judgment

02/05/2022

1.

Appellants-plaintiffs have filed this second appeal under

Section 100 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dated

12.01.2017 passed in civil first appeal No.12/2007 by Court of

Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Bayana District

(2 of 3)

[CSA-263/2017]

Bharatpur affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2007

passed in civil suit No.57/2000 by Court of Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Bayana dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit for declaration and

permanent injunction.

2.

It appears from impugned judgments that appellants-

plaintiffs filed the civil suit claiming their possession over the

agricultural land of gair mumkin abadi Khasra No.1096 ad

measuing 15 bigha 14 biswa as also of acquiring the ownership by

way of adverse possession. Respondents-defendants oppose the

claim of plaintiffs as also denied their possession over the suit

property. The trial court, as per rival pleadings of parties and after

framing the issues and recording evidence, concluded that

plaintiffs could not prove their actual and physical possession over

the suit property, as such the claim of plaintiffs to acquire

ownership by way of adverse possession was rejected and

consequentially suit for permanent injunction was also dismissed.

On filing first appeal, first appellate court also affirm the fact

findings of trial court after re-appreciation of evidence on record.

3.

Having heard learned counsel for appellants and on perusal

of impugned judgments, this Court finds that fact findings

recorded by two courts below in relation to having no possession

of plaintiffs over the suit property and consequentially declining

the relief to acquire adverse title, require no interference. The fact

findings recorded by courts below are based on appreciation/re-

appreciation of evidence. This court, while exercising powers

under Section 100 CPC is not supposed to re-appreciate the

evidence to draw a different conclusion of its own, other than

recorded by two courts below.

(3 of 3)

[CSA-263/2017]

4.

Learned counsel for appellants-plaintiffs could not point out

any infirmity, illegality or perversity in such fact findings. In case

of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar

[(1999) 3 SCC 722] and catena of other judgments passed in

case of Pakeerappa Rai Vs. Seethamma Hengsu & Ors.,

[(2001) 9 SCC 521], Thulasidhara & Anr. Vs. Narayanappa

& Ors., [(2019) 6 SCC 409], Bholaram Vs. Ameerchand,

[(1981) 2 SCC 414], Ishwar Das Jain Vs. Sohan Lal,

[(2000) 1 SCC 434]

and

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sabal

Singh & Ors., [(2019) 10 SCC 595], has categorically held that

at the stage of second appeal, fact findings recorded by two

Courts below, based on appreciation of evidence, should be

honoured