[2025:RJ-JP:31467] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 166/2010 Hariprasad S/o Nandkishore R/o Village Namana, Distt. Bundi. ----Appellant Versus 1. Durgashankar Alias Laddu S/o Shri Lal., R/o Village Namana, Distt. Bundi. 2. Kishan Gopal S/o Bhanwar Lal., R/o Village Namana, Distt. Bundi. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Pareek, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 13/08/2025 The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Bundi (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in civil appeal No. 72/2007, whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Bundi in civil suit No. 107/2003 by which the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (for short 'the defendants') mentioning therein that the plaintiff is the owner of the bada admeasuring 3 biswa mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint and the way to ingress and egress passes through khasra No. 910. The plaintiff used the said way since more than [2025:RJ-JP:31467] (2 of 4) [CSA-166/2010] 20 years. It was also mentioned that defendants wanted to close the way passing through khasra No. 910 by raising construction. The defendants started digging of foundation, the plaintiff tried to stop them but the defendants refused to stop the work. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be decreed. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that plaintiff filed the suit with malafide intention. They never used the land which belongs to the khasra No. 910 as a way. Said land is in the ownership of Mulilal. He had sold the land to Kanhaiya Lal, Brij Bihari and Mahaveer. Thereafter, Kanhaiya Lal and Brij Bihari had sold the land to the defendant No. 2 and after handing over the possession, the defendants raised construction. It was also stated that, for dispute with regard to way, only Gram Panchayat had jurisdiction to hear the matter under Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1- vk;k okni= dh pj.k la[;k 1 esa of.kZr iMkSlksa ds e/; okds xzke uekuk esa djhc 3 fcLok uki dk oknh dk ckM+k fLFkr gS\ 2- vk;k okni= dh pj.k la[;k 2 esa vfHkopukuqlkj jkLrk gS] ftls oknh 20 o"kksZa ls jkLrs ds :i esa dke esa ysrk pyk vk jgk gS\ 3- vk;k bl okn dks lquus dh vf/kdkfjrk bl U;k;ky; dks ugha gS\ 4- vk;k izfroknhx.k fo'ks"k gtkZ ds Lo:i oknh ls 5000@& :i;s izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ [2025:RJ-JP:31467] (3 of 4) [CSA-166/2010] 5- vuqrks"k\ ” To prove his case, plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1- Hari Prasad, PW-2-Nand Kishore and PW-3-Nand Lal. The defendants also got examined DW-1-Kishankopal, DW-2- Satyanarayan and DW-3-Muli Lal. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.07.2007, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff challenged the said judgment and decree dated 28.07.2007 passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.2008 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2007 passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the first appellate Court as well as the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the appeal as well as the suit filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that by way of oral evidence, the plaintiff proved that there is a way in the khasra No. 910 and plaintiff used the way for last 20 years. He also submits that the defendants failed to adduce cogent evidence that the plaintiff had alternate way. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had committed an error in deciding the issue No. 2 against the plaintiff and wrongly gave the finding that plaintiff failed to prove there is a way in khasra No. 910. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that evidence of the plaintiff as well as his witnesses was not required. So, the judgments passed by both the courts below be set aside and the present second appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:31467] (4 of 4) [CSA-166/2010] None is present on behalf of the defendants. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned judgments. By way of evidence, the plaintiff failed to prove that there is a way in khasra No. 910. The defendants by their evidence clearly proved that the land in question was belongs to Mulilal and the same was sold to Kanhaiya Lal, Brij Bihari and Mahaveer and after that, Kanhaiya Lal and Brij Bihari had sold the land to the defendant No. 2. So, in my considered opinion, the first appellate Court as well as the trial Court had not committed any error in dismissing the appeal as well as suit filed by the plaintiff. So, no ground is made out to admit the appeal on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Therefore, the present 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 Tahir/61