[2025:RJ-JP:23049] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 155/2023 Nagar Nigam Ajmer Through Its Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Office Prithviraj Marg, Ajmer District Ajmer Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. Harjeet Singh S/o Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Nai Basti, Naya Gar, Gulab Bari, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 2. Hanuman Shekhawat S/o Guide Singh Shekhawat, R/o C- 20, M.d. Colony, Naka Madar, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Brij Kishore Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nidhi Khandelwal Ms. Mamta Vijay HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 28/03/2025 1. Instant second appeal is preferred by appellant Nagar Nigam aggrieved from dismissal of civil regular appeal no. 25/2018 on 19.04.2023 by learned Additional District Judge no.2, Ajmer affirming the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2017 in civil suit no. 79/2014 passed by learned Civil Judge, City (East), Ajmer, wherein the decree of injunction was passed in favour of respondent no.1 plaintiff against defendants (present appellant) and respondent no.2. 2. Learned counsel for appellant while referring the grounds of appeal submitted that the respondent plaintiff has filed a civil suit for injunction in respect of a property khasra no. 4918 on the ground that without adopting a due process of acquisition present [2025:RJ-JP:23049] (2 of 8) [CSA-155/2023] appellant defendant is dispossessing on the ground that the plaintiff is a encroacher. Learned counsel has further submitted that the land in question is a government land and the plaintiff has no right or authority to seek injunction on Khasra no. 4918. He further submitted that the disputed land is registered as Dungar and it is an open place. He also submitted that it is a part of a developed scheme and scheme belongs to Ajmer Development Authority (ADA). He referred judgment in case of Prahlad Pradhan & Ors. Vs. Sonu Kumhar & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 259 and submitted that the entries in revenue record do not confer any title to property as they do not have any presumptive value about title. He further referred judgment in case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4702/2004, decided on 07.01.2014 and submitted that the entries in revenue record does not give any right in favour of plaintiff and the trial court and the appellate court have committed serious error while considering the case of injunction in favour of plaintiff only on the basis of revenue record. He further submitted that the plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction and not on suit for declaration of title, therefore, without establishing the possession of suit property the plaintiff is not entitled for injunction. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent plaintiff and she submitted that there is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below and there is no ground for interference in the concurrent finding of the fact. She also submitted that the grounds raised by learned counsel for [2025:RJ-JP:23049] (3 of 8) [CSA-155/2023] appellant are factual in nature and they are not sufficient to give rise to any substantial question of law. Learned counsel has further referred the findings on issue no.1 recorded by the trial court and submitted that the land in question is in possession of plaintiff and plaintiff has clearly established land record in favour of plaintiff, therefore, no substantial question of law arises from the grounds raised by appellant plaintiff. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. Also considered the judgements as referred by learned counsel for appellant. 5. Brief facts giving rise to instant second appeal are that respondent no.1 plaintiff has filed a civil suit no. 79/2014 for permanent injunction against the defendants about the suit property mentioned in para no.1 of plaint. After completion of pleadings, the trial court has framed issue no.1 and the burden was placed upon plaintiff. One witness was examined by plaintiff and he exhibited 18 documents, and to contradict evidence of PW- 1, the defendants have examined four witnesses and exhibited two documents. The trial court has decided issue no.1 in favour of plaintiff and issued an injunction order in favour of plaintiff and restrained the defendants. 6. Aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 18.07.2017 passed by the trial court, an appeal is preferred by present appellant defendant Nagar Nigam and another appeal by defendant Hanuman Singh Shekhawat but both these appeals were dismissed on 19.04.2023. Only present appellant Nagar Nigam has filed an appeal against the judgment of courts below. [2025:RJ-JP:23049] (4 of 8) [CSA-155/2023] 7. In case of Prahlad Pradhan & Ors. Vs. Sonu Kumhar & Ors. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the Section 31 of Specific Relief Act has observed that entries in revenue record do not confer title to property, nor they do have any presumptive value of title. Further observed that a void sale deed is not binding upon the parties. The revenue records only enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded, to pay the land revenue in respect of land in question. 8. In case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors. (supra), it was held that the entries in record of rights carry evidentiary value but itself would not confer any title on the plaintiff on the suit land in question. The plaintiff has to succeed on the strength of his case and not on weakness of the case set up by the defendants in a suit for declaration of title and possession. 9. Herein this case, issue of possession was considered by the trial court and same is a question of fact. No issue of declaration of title is raised before the trial court, therefore, the trial court has not decided any issue about title. The issue of injunction is decided only on the basis of material or evidence available on record. It is apparent on record that land record from Ex. A/1 to A/53 filed by the defendant to show that the land is a government land but on the contrary the plaintiff has filed record received from Ajmer Development Authority. In any case the suit is only for injunction and not for declaration. The trial court has only decided the issue of injunction on the basis of evidence both oral and documentary and not decided the issue of injunction. The entry in [2025:RJ-JP:23049] (5 of 8) [CSA-155/2023] revenue record does not give any right or title to anyone, therefore, for the purpose of injunction, unless there is a dispute about possession, there is no need to decide the issue of title. The appellant has not produced any evidence to show that the appellant is in fact having any right over the suit property, therefore, the findings on issue no.1 recorded by trial court is in accordance with evidence both oral and documentary and there is not perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the trial court. Similarly, the appellate court has not committed any error while deciding the issue in favour of respondent no.1 plaintiff. The grounds does not give rise to any substantial question of law as referred by learned counsel for appellant. 10. Section 100 of CPC provides for second appeal in case wherein the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. Thus, the First Appellate Court is final court on facts and in second appeal normally cannot re-appreciate the evidence or facts. 11. Just to determine whether a question is substantial question of law or not, was laid down by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons. Ltd. Vs. Century Spg. and Mgf. Co. Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314, as under: "The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or the general principles to [2025:RJ-JP:23049] (6 of 8) [CSA-155/2023] be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd the question would not be a substantial question of law." 12. Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Suresh Lataruji Ramteke versus Sau. Sumabai Pandurang Petkar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6070/2023, arising out of SLP(C)No.20183 of 2022 decided on 21.09.2023) considered the scope of Section 100 of CPC and summarised the law as under: 13. The jurisprudence on Section 100, CPC is rich and varied. Time and again this Court in numerous judgments has laid down, distilled and further clarified the requirements that must necessarily be met in order for a Second Appeal as laid down therein, to be maintainable, and thereafter be adjudicated upon. Considering the fact that numerous cases are filed before this Court which hinge on the application of this provision, we find it necessary to reiterate the principles. 13.1 The requirement, most fundamental under this section is the presence and framing of a “substantial question of law”. In other words, the existence of such a question is sine qua non for exercise of this jurisdiction. 13.2 The jurisdiction under this section has been described by this Court in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki (2007) 1 SCC 546 (Two-Judge Bench) stating that post 1976 amendment, the scope of Section 100 CPC stands drastically curtailed and narrowed down to be restrictive in nature. The High Court’s jurisdiction of interfering under Section 100 CPC is only in a case where substantial questions of law are involved, also clearly formulated/set out in the memorandum of appeal. It has been observed that: “At the time of admission of the second appeal, it is the bounden duty and obligation of the High Court to formulate substantial questions of law and then only the High Court is permitted to proceed with the case to decide those questions of law. The language used in the amended section specifically incorporates the words as “substantial question of law” which is indicative of the legislative intention. It must be clearly understood that the legislative intention was very clear that legislature never wanted second appeal to become “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble”. The effect of the amendment mainly, according to the amended section, was: (i) The High Court would be justified in admitting the second appeal only when a substantial question of law is involved; (ii) The substantial question of law to precisely state such question; [2025:RJ-JP:23049] (7 of 8) [CSA-155/2023] (iii) A duty has been cast on the High Court to formulate substantial question of law before hearing the appeal; (iv) Another part of the section is that the appeal shall be heard only on that question.” Gurdev Kaur (supra) was referred to and relied upon in Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh & Ors. (2019) 17 SCC 71 13.3 In Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (2001) 3 SCC 179 a Bench of three Judges, held as under in regard to what constitutes a substantial question of law:- a) Not previously settled by law of land or a binding precedent. b) Material bearing on the decision of case; and (c) New point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, it will depend on facts of each case. Such principles stand followed in Government of Kerala v. Joseph 2023 SCC Online SC 961 and Chandrabhan v. Saraswati 2022 SCC Online SC 1273. 16.5 Interference on findings of fact permitted in exceptional cases, i.e., when finding is based on either inadmissible or, no evidence. This Court in Dinesh Kumar v. Yusuf Ali (2010) 12 SCC 740 referring to various other cases held:- a) It is not permissible for High Court to reappreciate evidence as if it was the first appellate court unless findings were perverse. b) Finding of fact can be interfered in exceptional circumstances as rarity, rather than a regularity. c) Scrutiny of evidence in second appeal is not prohibited but has to be exercised upon proper circumspection. 13. In case of Amar Singh Vs. Dalip Singh (2012) 13 SCC 405, Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the purpose of framing question of law in following manner: “a) The purpose of framing of substantial question of law is to give the parties an opportunity to come prepared on that particular question. b) When a substantial question of law is formulated by the Court then the same must be made known to parties and thereafter they have to be given an opportunity to advanced arguments thereon. [2025:RJ-JP:23049] (8 of 8) [CSA-155/2023] c) If any additional questions were framed at the time of hearing, the Court must hear the parties on that question as well.” 14. Hon’ble Court in case of Chandrabhan Vs. Saraswati 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1273 (decided on 22.09.2022) has summarised principle relating to Section 100 of CPC in following words:- “(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.” 15. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the second appeal sans merit and same is liable to be dismissed. 16. In view of above, the second appeal filed aggrieved from judgment dated 19.04.2023 in civil regular appeal no. 25/2018 is hereby dismissed. 17. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. 18. No orders as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /150