[2025:RJ-JP:39161] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 177/2023 1. Smt. Preeti Khincha W/o Sh. Arun Khincha, (Since Deceased) Aged About 65 Years, R/o Plot No. B/121, Near Kabir Bhawan, Behind Ganesh Mandir, Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur-302004 1.1 Sh. Arun Khincha H/o Late Smt. Preeti Khincha, Aged About 71 Years, R/o B/121, Suraj Sadan, Moti Doongri Road, Behind Ganesh Mandir, Jaipur-302004 1.2 Sh. Siddharth Khincha S/o Late Smt. Preeti Khincha, Aged About 41 Years, R/o B/121, Suraj Sadan, Moti Doongri Road, Behind Ganesh Mandir, Jaipur-302004 1.3 Sh. Sambha Khincha S/o Late Smt. Preeti Khincha, Aged About 34 Years, R/o B/121, Suraj Sadan, Moti Doongri Road, Behind Ganesh Mandir, Jaipur-302004 ----Appellants-Plantiff Versus 1. Sh. Danmal Surana S/o Late Smt. Manorama Devi W/o Late Sh. Gumanmal Surana, R/o Plot No. B/121, Near Kabir Bhawan, Behind Ganesh Mandir, Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur-302004 2. Sh. Shantichand Surana, S/o Late Smt. Manorama Devi W/o Late Sh. Gumanmal Surana, R/o Plot No. B/121, Near Kabir Bhawan, Behind Ganesh Mandir, Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur-302004 3. Sh. Kushalchand Surana, S/o Late Smt. Manorama Devi W/o Late Sh. Gumanmal Surana, R/o Plot No. B/121, Near Kabir Bhawan, Behind Ganesh Mandir, Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur-302004 ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vivek Dangi, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Jatawat, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. O P Mishra, Adv. Ms. Meeta Pareek, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS [2025:RJ-JP:39161] (2 of 8) [CSA-177/2023] Judgment / Order 23/09/2025 1. vihykFkhZ@oknh;k dh vksj ls ;g f}rh; vihy vUrxZr /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh-fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&6] t;iqj egkuxj] izFke }kjk nhokuh fu;fer vihy la[;k 17@2018 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 10-01-2023 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls vihykFkhZ@oknh;k dh vihy [kkfjt djrs gq, fo}ku flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ,oa egkuxj eftLVªsV ¼iwoZ½ t;iqj egkuxj }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k 208@2007 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 27-09-2018 dh iqf"V dh x;h] ftlds ek/;e ls vihykFkhZ@oknh;k dk okn ckcr~ LFkk;h ,oa vkKkid fu"ks/kkKk [kkfjt fd;k x;kA 2- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ rFkk izR;FkhZ dh cgl lquhA pwafd ;g f}rh; flfoy vihy gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa tc rd fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u varoZfyr ugha gks] rc rd lquokbZ gsrq xzg.k ugha dh tk ldrh gS rFkk fopkj.k o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk tks fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS] mlesa lkekU; :i ls gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigda Laxmi and Anr. AIR 2008 SC 380 ds iSjk la[;k 13 esa fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS %& "13. The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding." [2025:RJ-JP:39161] (3 of 8) [CSA-177/2023] 3- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk vU; U;kf;d fu.kZ; Gurnam Singh vs. Lehna Singh 2019 (7) SCC 641 esa Hkh mijksDr er O;Dr djrs gq, ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd f}rh; vihy esa lk{; dk iqu% fo'ys"k.k o foospu vuqKs; ugha gS] mijksDr fu.kZ; dk lqlaxr Hkkx fuEukuqlkj gS%& "Before parting with the present judgment, we remind the High Courts that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in an appeal under Section 100 CPC, is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below and/or the first appellate court and if the first appellate court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in second appeal. We have noticed and even as repeatedly observed by this Court and even in Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini [Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, (2009) 5 SCC 264 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 500] , despite the catena of decisions of this Court and even the mandate under Section 100 CPC, the High Courts under Section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of facts and/or even the findings recorded by the first appellate court, either without formulating the substantial question of law or on framing erroneous substantial question of law." 4- fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u D;k gksxk] bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by L.Rs AIR 2001 SC 965 ds iSjk la[;k&12 esa fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS%& "12. The phrase 'substantial question of law', as occurring in the amended Section 100 is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying 'question of law', means — of having substance, essential, real, of sound [2025:RJ-JP:39161] (4 of 8) [CSA-177/2023] worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with — technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of 'substantial question of law' by suffixing the words “of general importance” as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta v. T. Ram Ditta [AIR 1928 PC 172 : 55 IA 235] , the phrase 'substantial question of law' as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 110 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case as between the parties......" 5- fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk ;g rdZ gS fd oknh;k }kjk oknxzLr laifRr fojsUnz ls [kjhn dh x;h Fkh] fojsUnz }kjk izn'kZ ,&13 ds ek/;e ls ujs'k ls [kjhn dh x;h Fkh] ftlds fodz; i= rFkk fodz; i= ds lkFk layXu uD'ks esa oknxzLr [kjhn'kqnk Hkw[kaM ds {ks=Qy ds laca/k esa fojks/kkHkkl gS] ysfdu fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ek= foØ; i= ij gh fopkj fd;k x;k gS] foØ; i= ds layXu ekufp= ij fopkj fd, fcuk fopkj.k o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk oknh dk vkosnu varxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 14 lhihlh Lohdkj djrs gq, izn'kZ&,13 foØ; i= ds lkFk layXu ekufp= dks vfHkys[k ij fy;k x;k gS] ysfdu ln~Hkkfod =qfVo'k mls iznf'kZr ugha djok;k tk ldk vkSj dkykarj esa fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk vkns'k 41 fu;e 27 lhihlh dk vkosnu rF;ksa o fof/k ds foijhr tkdj bl ekufp= dks vlaxr ekurs gq, vkns'k 41 fu;e 27 lhihlh dk vkosnu vLohdkj fd;k x;k] tcfd og izn'kZ&,13 foØ; i= dk Hkkx Fkk vkSj nksuksa [2025:RJ-JP:39161] (5 of 8) [CSA-177/2023] i`Fkd&i`Fkd i<+s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus U;kf;d n`"Vkar Jherh xqykc nsoh ¼e`rd½ oxS- cuke Jherh ukjaxh nsoh ¼e`rd½ o mlds fof/kd izfrfuf/kx.k 2023¼2½ vkj-,y-MCY;w- 1206¼jkt0½] izfrHkk flag o vU; cuke 'kkafr nsoh izlkn o vU; ¼2003½ 2 ,llhlh 330] okMh cuke vfeyky o oxS- ¼2015½ 1 ,llhlh 677 izLrqr djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k fd ekufp= ij fopkj fd, fcuk fo}ku fopkj.k o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; iw.kZr% rF;ksa o fof/k ds foijhr gksdj vuqfpr (perverse) gSA 6- U;kf;d fu.kZ; Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 216, Sebastiao Luis Fernandes (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. Vs. K.V.P. Shastri (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. (2013) 15 SCC 161, izLrqr djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k fd tgka fopkj.k o vihyh; U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; o fu"d"kZ rF;ksa dks utjvankt dj ikfjr fd;k x;k gS rks og vuqfpr gS vkSj ml ifjfLFkfr esa leorhZ fu"d"kZ gksus ds ckotwn f}rh; vihy esa U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi fd;k tkuk laHko gSA 7- blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ }kjk ;g rdZ fn;k x;k gS fd oknh;k ds iwokZf/kdkjh ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr izn'kZ ,&13 ij {ks=Qy 24-94 oxZxt mYysf[kr fd;k x;k gS] vr% mlls vf/kd Hkwfe ekufp= esa nf'kZr dh x;h gS rks og rF; fopkj ;ksX; ugha gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk oknh;k ds LokfeRo ds nLrkostksa dh laiw.kZ J`a[kyk ij fopkj djus rFkk nLrkosth o ekSf[kd lk{; ij fopkj djus ds mijkar vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k gS ftldh iqf"V fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh dh x;h gS vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa f}rh; vihy esa iqu% lk{; dk fo'ys"k.k o foospu bl U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA 8- fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ dk ,d rdZ ;g Hkh gS fd oknh;k Lo;a ;g vfHkdFku ysdj vk;h gS fd izfroknh us dfFkr :i ls mlds Hkw[kaM ds iwohZ Hkkx ds 11-8 X 4 fQV ij izfroknh us vukf/kd`r :Ik ls dCtk dj rFkk lMd dh dqN Hkwfe dks lfEefyr djrs gq, voS/k fuekZ.k dj fy;k gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa Lo;a oknh;k ds vfHkdFkuksa ds vuqlkj fookfnr LFky ij oknh;k dk dCtk ugha Fkk rFkk fookfnr LFky ds laca/k esa mldk LokfeRo [2025:RJ-JP:39161] (6 of 8) [CSA-177/2023] pqukSrhxzLr o lansgkLin Fkk] vr% ?kks"k.kk o dCtk izkfIr ds vuqrks"k ds fcuk ek= fu"ks/kkKk dk okn iks"k.kh; ugha FkkA vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa mUgksaus U;kf;d n`"Vkar Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594 izLrqr fd;k gS ftldk iSjk la[;k&13 lqlaxr gS] tks fuEukuqlkj gS %& 13. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly. 13.1 Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner. 13.2 where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession. 13.3 Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction. mijksDr rdZ izLrqr djrs gq, izR;FkhZ i{k dh vksj ls vihy [kkkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA 9- lqlaxr rF; ;g gS fd oknh;k }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k fu"ks/kkRed o vkKkid LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk okn izLrqr dj ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k fd okfn;k ds LokfeRo ds Hkw[kaM ds iwohZ Hkkx 11-8 X 4 fQV ij rFkk lM+d ds dqN fgLls ij izfroknh }kjk vfrØe.k djrs gq, vius edku dk fuekZ.k dj fy;k gS] ftls gVkus gsrq vkKkid LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk Hkh pkgh gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk nksuksa i{kksa dh ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; ij fopkj djus ds mijkar ;g vfHker izdV fd;k gS fd okfn;k dks ;g Hkw[kaM fojasnz }kjk foØ; fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk Lo;a fojsanz }kjk ;g Hkw[kaM ujs'k ls [2025:RJ-JP:39161] (7 of 8) [CSA-177/2023] [kjhn fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj blh nLrkost izn'kZ&,13 ij Hkw[kaM dk {ks=Qy 24-94 oxZxt vafdr gS] tcfd okfn;k dks fojsanz }kjk mlls vf/kd 39-62 oxZxt Hkwfe dk foØ; fd;k x;k gS tks fof/k vuqlkj laHko ugha gS] D;ksafd dksbZ Hkh foØsrk vius ls csgrj o vf/kd LokfeRo varj.k djus gsrq laHko ugha gSA izn'kZ ,&13 foØ; i= ds lkFk ekufp= izfroknh dh vksj ls izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k Fkk] ysfdu oknh dh vksj ls vkns'k 7 fu;e 14 lhihlh ds rgr vkosnu izLrqr dj vkosnu ds mijkar izLrqr fd;k x;k] ysfdu mls iznf'kZr o izekf.kr ugha djok;k x;kA pwafd ;g nLrkost iznf'kZr o izekf.kr ugha gqvk gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa f}rh; vihy Hkh fopkj ;ksX; ugha gSA blds vykok ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd tgka foØ; dh xbZ laifRr ds {ks=Qy ds laca/k esa foØ; i= o mlds layXu ekufp= esa folaxfr gks rks foØ; i= esa mYysf[kr {ks=Qy gh egRoiw.kZ gksrk gSA blds vykok ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd orZeku vihy f}rh; vihy gS rFkk bl LVst ij lk{; dk iqu% fo'ys"k.k o foospu vuqKs; ugha gSA 10- iwoksZDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk o f}rh; vihy ds Ldksi vkfn ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k ij miyC/k lkexzh o lk{; dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu djus ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vfHkys[k ij miyC/k rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa Lohd`fr dh vuns[kh dh gks ;k tks rF; vfHkys[k ij miyC/k ugha gS] ml ij fopkj fd;k gks ;k lkfcr rF;ksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ xyr bUÝsal gks] ,slk n`f"Vxr ugha gksrk gS] fo}ku fopkj.k rFkk vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh dk lgh :i ls fo'ys"k.k o foospu fd;k gS rFkk fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dh iqf"V fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk dh x;h gS] bl izdkj leorhZ rF;kRed fu"d"kZ jgk gaS] blfy, mijksDr fu.kZ;ksa esa gLr{ksi fd, tkus ds dksbZ fof/klEer vk/kkj ugha gSA 11- vr% nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk mDr lEcU/k esa vfHkfyf[kr leorhZ rF;kRed fu"d"kksZa esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ =qfV vFkok izfrdwyrk ugha gksus ls o bl f}rh; vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ iz'u vFkok fof/k dk [2025:RJ-JP:39161] (8 of 8) [CSA-177/2023] dksbZ lkjHkwr iz'u ugha gksus ls ;g f}rh; vihy xzg.kkFkZ Lrj ij gh fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS] tks ,rn~}kjk fujLr dh tkrh gSA 12- LFkxu vkosnu o vU; vkosnu] ;fn dksbZ yafcr gksa] rks os Hkh mDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J Murari Lal Sharma /16