HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 292/2024 Arjunlal S/o Late Ganpatram, R/o Pawta, Tehsil Pawta, District Kotputli- Behrod, Rajasthan ---Plaintiff-Appellant Versus 1. Principal, Government Senior Secondary School, Pawta, District Kotputli-Behrod, Rajasthan 2. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Pawta, Tehsil Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behrod, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Naqvi Sehban Najib, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy.G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 09/05/2025 The second appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 28.05.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Kotputli, Jaipur (for short ‘the appellate court’) in Civil Regular Appeal No.12/2024, whereby the appellate court while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2024 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Kotputli, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Original Case No.145/2013(142/2017), by which the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) before the trial court to the effect that the (2 of 4) [CSA-292/2024] plaintiff has a Guwada, facing towards South situated at Pavata Dhani Kila near Murlidhar Ji Mandir, Tehsil Kotputli, Jaipur. The boundaries of the disputed land were described in Para No.1 of the plaint. The plaintiff’s ancestors were having possession over the said land for hundred of years and since then they were using it. Due to political rivalry, the defendants wanted to demolish it. So, it was prayed that the injunction be granted in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 filed a written statement before the trial court mentioning therein that the disputed land belongs to Government School. The plaintiff wanted to encroach upon it. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k okn i= ds en la[;k 1 esa of.kZrkuqlkj fookfnr xqokMs ij oknh cqtqxkZu ds le; ls vf/kd le; ls fof/kd :i ls dkfct gS\ &oknh 2- vk;k fookfnr Hkwfe iapk;r lfefr ikoVk ds uke vkoafVr gksdj [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe gS\ &izfroknh la[;k 2 3- vk;k okn dkj.k ds vHkko esa nkok [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS\ &izfroknhx.k 4- vk;k okn fof/kd uksfVl u nsus ds vHkko esa [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS\ &izfroknh la[;k 1 5- vk;k okn Jo.kkf/kdkj ds vHkko esa [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS\ &izfroknh la[;k 1 6- vk;k mfpr dksVZQhl ds vHkko esa nkok [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS\ &izfroknh la[;k 2 (3 of 4) [CSA-292/2024] 7- vuqrks"kA To prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and got examined Moolchand as PW-2 and Khayali as PW-3. To prove their case, the defendants got examined Shankar Lal Verma as DW-1 and Subhash Chand Goyal as DW-2. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.2024 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 30.03.2024, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.05.2024 while affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2024, dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial court as well as appellate court have committed a serious error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. They have not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff in his plaint clearly stated that the plaintiff’s ancestors were having possession over the disputed land for hundreds of years, so he can not be said as an encroacher. The plaintiff has a settled possession over the disputed land, so the defendants should have been evicted by following the due process of Law. So, the present second appeal filed by the plaintiff be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submitted the disputed land is a government land. Part of the land (4 of 4) [CSA-292/2024] was allotted to Government School. The plaintiff failed to adduce any cogent evidence regarding his possession over the disputed land. He is an encroacher. So, the trial court as well as the appellate court have not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. So, no substantial question of law is made out for admission of the appeal. So, the present second appeal filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff failed to prove title as well as possession over the disputed land by him or his ancestors for the past 100 years. Part of the disputed land was allotted to the Government School and disputed land is a Government land. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court as well as the appellate court have not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, no ground is made out to admit the second appeal on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. So, the second appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/37