[2026:RJ-JP:11704] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 278/2017 1. Late Shri Ghasilal S/o Late Shri Chela Ram, R/o Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. (deceased) 1/1. Shri Bhawani Shankar Mahawar, S/o Late Shri Ghasilal, R/o Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. 1/2. Shri Kapil Dev, S/o Late Shri Ghasilal, R/o Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. 1/3. Shri Shailendra Kumar, S/o Late Shri Ghasilal, R/o Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. 1/4. Smt Vimla, D/o Late Shri Ghasilal, R/o Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. 1/5. Smt Urmila Mahawar D/o Late Shri Ghasilal, R/o Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. 1/6. Smt Rekha Devi Mahawar, D/o Late Shri Ghasilal, R/o Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. ----Defendants/Appellants Versus 1. Phoolchand S/o Bhonrilal, resident of Shiwad, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. 2. Beelabai D/o Bhonrilal, W/o Ramprasad, resident of Dausa, District Dausa, Rajasthan. 3. Mangli Bai D/o Bhonrilal, Widow of Manphool Saini, resident of Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2024) 4. Sushila Devi D/o Bhonrilal, W/o Madan Lal, resident of Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2024) 5. Govind Narain S/o Bhonrilal, resident of Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. (Since Deceased) 5/1- Sh. Kamlesh Saini, s/o Late Sh. Govind Narain, r/o Plot no. 14. Shanti Path, Scheme no 21. south Niwaru Road. Jhotwara, Jaipur. 5/2 Sh. Lal Chand Saini, s/o Late Sh. Govind Narain, r/o Plot no. 14. Shanti Path, Scheme no 21. south Niwaru Road. Jhotwara, Jaipur. 6. Babulal S/o Bhonrilal, resident of Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. (Abated vide order dated 28.03.2025) ----Plaintiffs/Respondents 7. State of Rajasthan, represented through District Collector, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. 8. Executive Engineer, Department of Mines, Sawai [2026:RJ-JP:11704] (2 of 10) [CSA-278/2017] Madhopur, Rajasthan ----Defendants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Utkarsh Dubey for Mr. Prateek Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma for Mr. Saransh Saini HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 19/03/2026 1. The present second appeal has been filed by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sawai Madhopur, in Civil Appeal No.305/2009 (28/2003), titled as 'Ghasilal Vs. Phoolchand & Ors.', whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2003 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), in Civil Suit No.11/2001 (247/1980), titled as 'Bhonrilal (since deceased) through his legal representatives & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.', through which the suit for possession and injunction filed by the plaintiffs/respondents was decreed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present second appeal are that the original plaintiff/respondent, Bhonrilal (father of respondent Nos.1 to 6), filed a suit for injunction and possession of the suit property, stating therein that the plaintiffs/respondents are the owners of the suit property by virtue of a Patta granted by the erstwhile Jagirdar of 'Thikanedar' Chauth Ka Barwada (Ex-Ruler of Chauth Ka Barwada). It was further averred that the plaintiffs/respondents had been in possession of the suit property for a long time, that defendant No.2-State had sanctioned the [2026:RJ-JP:11704] (3 of 10) [CSA-278/2017] mining lease in favour of defendant No.3/appellant without any authority of law, and that the present suit was filed when defendant No.2-State threatened their possession of the suit property. The plaint was subsequently amended because the defendants/appellants had entered into possession of the suit property; accordingly, the consequential relief of possession was also added to the prayer clause. 3. Upon service in the said suit, defendant No.2-State contested the same by filing a written statement, wherein it was contended that the alleged Patta issued in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents was a prima facie forged document. It was further pleaded that the Ex-Ruler of Chauth Ka Barwada was not competent to issue any Patta i.e. title deed, as by that time Jagir-Chauth Ka Barwada did not exist any longer due to the merger of the Jaipur State with the Union of India. Therefore, the plaintiffs/respondents were not the rightful title holders of the suit property, whereas the suit property belonged to defendant No.2-State, and accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the said suit. 4. The present defendant/appellant No.3 also filed a written statement and contended that since the plaintiffs/respondents do not have any title to the suit property, and the suit property is owned by the State of Rajasthan, which had issued a mining lease in his favour, the plaintiffs had no right to seek the relief claimed in the suit, and accordingly prayed for its dismissal. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Court below framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k okn i= ds iSjk la[;k 2 esa of.kZrkuqlkj pkSFk dk cjokMk esa oknhx.k dk eeywdk edcwtk uksgjk gSA blesa edkukr cu jgs gSa] tks djhc 25&26 lky iqjkus gSa\ [2026:RJ-JP:11704] (4 of 10) [CSA-278/2017] 2- vk;k mDr uksgjs dh Hkwfe iwoZ if'pe 67 xt o mRrj&nf{k.k 37 xt dk iV~Vk lu~ 1954 esa fBdkuk pkSFk dk cjokMk ls oknhx.k dks fn;k Fkk \ 3- vk;k xzke iapk;r pkSFk dk cjokMk us fu.kZ; fnukad 11-08-1963 esa oknhx.k dk mDr uksgjs ij vkf/kiR; ekuk Fkk \ 4- vk;k Hkwfe tks jkT; ljdkj }kjk yht ij nsus dh lwjr esa oknh dks yht ij ysus dk izFke vf/kdkj gS \ 5- vk;k fookfnr Hkwfe jktLo jsdkMZ ds vuqlkj flok;pd gSA blfy;s okn dk Jo.kvf/kdkj bl U;k;ky; dks ugha gS \ 6- vk;k fookfnr Hkwfe jkT; ljdkj dh eeywdk edcwtk Hkwfe gSA bl Hkwfe dks lu 1947&48 esa fBdkuk pkSFk dk cjokMk us t;iqj LVsV ls yht ij fy;k Fkk o Lo;a oknhx.k us Hkh bl Hkwfe dks jkT; ljdkj ls yht ij yh FkhA blfy;s ;g Hkwfe oknhx.k dh eeywdk edcwtk gksus dk iz'u gh ugha gS\ 7- vk;k yht ds le; yht gksYMj }kjk djk;k x;k fuekZ.k yht lekfIr ij mldk LokfeRo jkT; ljdkj dk gks tkrk gS \ 8- vk;k vk;k fookfnr Hkwfe flok;pd Hkwfe gS] ls oknhx.k ds csn[kyh ds vkns'k jktLo U;k;ky; }kjk fn;s x;s gSa\ 8,- vk;k izfroknh la[;k 3 us nkSjkus nkok fookfnr {ks= esa oknh ds LokfeRo o dCts ds edkukr o uksgjk ij vukf/kd`r dCtk dj fy;k gS] ;fn gkW rks bldk izHkko \ 8ch- vk;k izfroknh la[;k 3 us [kljk uacj 1001 dLck pkSFk dk cjokMk esa cjfu;r vnkor 60 x 60 ehVj dk yht ,fj;k bl izdkj bZ;jekdZ djok;k gS fd oknhx.k dh iwjh fookfnr lEifRr blesa vk xbZ \ ;fn gkW rks bldk nkos rFkk yht dh oS/krk ij D;k izHkko gS \ 8lh- vk;k oknhx.k }kjk okni= ds la'kks/ku ds QyLo:i dksbZ dksVZ Qhl vnk fd;s fcuk gh vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkj gS \ 8Mh- vk;k oknhx.k izfroknhx.k dks fook|d la[;k 8, esa of.kZr edkukr o uksgjk ls csn[ky djokdj Lo;a dCtk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS \ 9- vuqrks"k \ 6. In order to substantiate the averments, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff No.3-Babulal (PW-1), Liyakat Ali (PW-2), Durgashankar (PW-3), Chandrashekhar (PW-4), Purshottam Lal [2026:RJ-JP:11704] (5 of 10) [CSA-278/2017] (PW-5), Mohan Singh (PW-6) and Chhitarmal (PW-7) and produced as many as 64 documents marked as Ex.-1 to Ex.-64. 7. In rebuttal, the defendants examined Ghansilal (DW-1), Prem Shankar (DW-2), Durgashankar (DW-3) and Sheonath (DW- 4) and produced as many as 38 documents marked as Ex.-A1 to Ex.-A38. 8. After hearing the arguments advanced by the parties and examining the record, the learned Trial Court decided issue Nos.1, 2 & 6 in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents, holding that the plaintiffs are the rightful owners of the suit property by virtue of the Patta issued by the Ex-Ruler of Chauth Ka Barwada. The Trial Court also held that the defendants had failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the Ex-Ruler did not have the right to issue the Patta in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs/respondents, and resultantly decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 24.03.2003. 9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 24.03.2003, only defendant/appellant No.3 (the mining lease holder) preferred a regular first appeal. After considering the facts and circumstances in detail and carefully analyzing the material on record, the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned Appellate Court, while deciding the appeal, also took cognizance of the fact that the period of the alleged mining lease issued in favour of the defendant/appellant in 1980 had expired, and that possession of the subject property had already been taken from the appellant by [2026:RJ-JP:11704] (6 of 10) [CSA-278/2017] the State authorities, as is evident from Ex.-63 (possession report dated 03.07.2000). 11. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings arrived at by both the learned Courts below, the appellant has preferred the present second appeal. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has only raised a question herein: that the alleged Patta issued in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs/respondents does not confer any title because, after the resumption of the Jagir, the Ex-Ruler could not have issued a Patta for the suit property. He therefore submits that the suit cannot be decreed on the basis of an ex facie illegal Patta, and accordingly prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions and submitted that the learned Courts below, while deciding issue Nos.1, 2 & 6, had considered the question posed by the appellant herein in detail. He argued that the Courts rightly turned down the defence preferred by the defendant-State that the Ex-Ruler was not competent to issue the said Patta, especially in the absence of any documentary evidence produced by the State. He further submitted that the alleged lease deed issued in favour of the appellant has already come to an end, and the appellant is no longer in possession of the suit property, which is evident from Ex.-63 (possession report dated 03.07.2000). He finally submitted that the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below do not suffer from any perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court, [2026:RJ-JP:11704] (7 of 10) [CSA-278/2017] and as there is no substantial question of law involved in the present second appeal, and accordingly prayed for its dismissal. 14. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the suit was filed with the averment that the suit property was owned by the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs/respondents, as the Ex- Ruler of Chauth Ka Barwada had issued a Patta in their favour and they were in peaceful possession of the same. It was further averred that the plaintiffs/respondents were in apprehension of hindrance to their peaceful possession; therefore, the suit was initially filed seeking a permanent injunction. Subsequently, during the pendency of the suit, because a lease deed for the suit property was issued to defendant No.3 and he was put in possession of the same, a necessary amendment was carried out in the plaint, and the relief for possession was accordingly added. 16. During the suit proceedings, the main defence taken by the State and the present appellant was that the suit property is Sawai Chak land belonging to the Government. They contended that the plaintiffs/respondents do not have any right, title, or interest therein, primarily on the ground that the Ex-Ruler had no authority after 1952 to issue the alleged Patta in their favour. 17. From a bare perusal of the impugned judgments and decrees, it is reflected that both the learned Courts below have held that the plaintiffs/respondents have successfully proved their title over the suit property through the Patta (Ex.1) issued by the Ex-Ruler of Chauth Ka Barwada. It was also held by the learned [2026:RJ-JP:11704] (8 of 10) [CSA-278/2017] Courts below that the defendants miserably failed to prove that the Ex-Ruler did not have the authority to issue the Patta over the suit property. The Courts further observed that the defendants failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate their defence. 18. Further, it is also evident that the main contesting defendant- State and the Mining Engineer never preferred an appeal against the impugned judgments and decrees; it was only the present appellant (the licensee) who led a challenge to the same. 19. From the record, it is reiteratively evident that the main contesting defendants have not sought to challenge the impugned judgments and decrees. Furthermore, the period of the alleged mining lease issued in favour of the defendant/appellant in 1980 had expired, and possession of the subject property had already been taken from the appellant by the State, as is evident from Ex.-63 (possession report dated 03.07.2000), and handed over to the plaintiffs/respondents in execution. 20. From the record of the case, it is also evident that during the pendency of the present appeal, in execution proceedings, the plaintiffs/respondents had already been put in possession of the suit property on 06.05.2017. Furthermore, the present appeal qua respondent Nos.3 & 4 stood abated vide order dated 02.02.2024, and the appeal also stands abated qua respondent No.6 vide order dated 28.03.2025. The appellant herein could not substantiate that the decree can be segregated qua respondent Nos.3, 4 & 6 from the remaining respondents. Therefore, once the appeal stands abated qua respondent Nos.3, 4 & 6, it attains finality qua [2026:RJ-JP:11704] (9 of 10) [CSA-278/2017] those respective respondents, and the present second appeal legally cannot survive against the respondent Nos.1, 2 & LRs of 5. 21. Thus, it cannot be said that the learned Courts below committed any illegality regarding the proposed question of law raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, especially once the State, being the main contesting defendant, has failed to challenge the findings recorded against it concerning issue Nos.1, 2 & 6. In the absence of any appeal by the State, it cannot be argued by the appellant that the Patta issued in favour of the plaintiffs does not confer any right, title, or interest over the suit property. 22. Since the issue of title has been examined by the Courts below and issue Nos.1, 2 & 6 have been decided against the State as well as the appellant (who is no longer in possession), the proposed questions of law are essentially questions of fact, and do not fall within the purview of the substantial questions of law. 23. In Nazir Mohamed vs J.Kamala And Ors.1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the condition precedent for entertaining and deciding a second appeal is the existence of a substantial question of law. 24. A second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC can be filed only if a substantial question of law is involved in the case, and it is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at by the last court of fact, being the first appellate court. As such, second appeal cannot be decided on equitable grounds, rather the conditions prescribed 1 AIR 2020 SC (4321) [2026:RJ-JP:11704] (10 of 10) [CSA-278/2017] in section 100 of CPC must be strictly complied with to admit and maintain a second appeal. 25. In Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty2, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that High Courts should not re-appreciate the evidence in the matter to reach another possible view in order to set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate court. 26. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are based on a proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Hence, the concurrent findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are found immaculate and infallible in the eye of law. 27. Thus, in view of the discussions made herein above, no question of law much less any substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal warranting interference by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 100 of CPC. 28. Accordingly, no substantial question of law is made out, the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the learned courts below are hereby affirmed and in result thereof, the present second appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed 29. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-1 2 (1996) 6 SCC 166