REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.10833 OF 2010
Nagar Palika Raisinghnagar ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Rameshwar Lal & Anr. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This appeal is filed by the defendant against
the final judgment and order dated 03.11.2006
passed by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Regular Second
Appeal No.70 of 1989 whereby the High Court
dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant and
affirmed the judgment/decree passed by the first
Appellate Court dated 17.04.1989 in Appeal Civil
No. 19 of 1988 arising out of Civil Suit No.28 of
1
1983 decided on 06.09.1988 passed by the Munsif
and Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar.
2) Facts of the case are simple so also the point
involved in the appeal. They, however, need
mention in brief infra.
3) The appellant is Nagar Palika Raisinghnagar
(Rajasthan). The appellant is the defendant
whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in the
aforementioned civil suit out of which this appeal
arises.
4) The dispute relates to a small piece of land
(100x100 sq. ft.) situated at Gaushala Block, Ward
No.10 (earlier known as ‘E Block’), Raisingh Nagar
(hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”).
5) The respondent (plaintiff) claiming to be the
holder and in possession of the suit land on the
strength of Patta issued in favour of his grand father
- Pokhar Ram by the appellant herein way back in
the year 1957 vide Resolution No.7 dated
13.02.1957 filed a suit against the appellant out of
2
which this appeal arises seeking permanent
injunction restraining the appellant from
dispossessing him from the suit land.
6) In substance, the case of the respondent, as
set out in the plaint, was that the appellant - Nagar
Palika had originally allotted the suit land to the
respondent’s grandfather - Pokhar Ram as back as
in 1957 against the payment of consideration which
had duly paid by Pokhar Ram to the appellant vide
receipt No.51 dated 18.03.1957.
7) It was alleged that Pokhar Ram then
constructed his hut on the suit land and continued
to live therein during his lifetime. On his death, the
respondent's father continued to live therein during
his lifetime and then on his death, the respondent
inherited the suit land/hut and continued to remain
in its occupation till the date of filing of the suit.
8) According to the respondent, the need to file
the suit arose because he had some apprehension
that the appellant-Nagar Palika which had taken
3
out a drive to oust some encroachers from the land
belonging to Nagar Palika in the Municipal area may
dispossess the respondent also from the suit land
treating him as an encroacher on the suit land. It
was for this reason, the respondent filed the civil
suit to seek permanent injunction against the
appellant in relation to the suit land on the strength
of Patta already granted in favour of his
predecessor-in-title by the appellant.
9) The appellant filed its written statement.
While denying the respondent's claim, the appellant
inter alia alleged that the respondent's grandfather
was given some other land, that the grant so made
in relation to the said land was cancelled and the
money received was also refunded to him, that the
suit land is a Nagar Palika land and the respondent
with the help of some employees of the Nagar Palika
got the suit land un-authorizedly allotted to him,
and lastly, the suit land is needed for public
purpose.
4
10) Issues were framed. Parties adduced evidence.
The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 06.09.1988,
dismissed the suit. The respondent (plaintiff), felt
aggrieved, filed first appeal before the First Appellate
Court. The First Appellate Court, vide
judgment/decree dated 17.04.1989, allowed the
appeal and while setting aside of the
judgment/decree of the Trial Court decreed the
respondent's suit and accordingly granted
permanent injunction, as prayed by the respondent,
against the appellant in relation to the suit land.
11) The First Appellate Court held that the
respondent's grandfather was granted Patta in
relation to the suit land by the appellant; that the
appellant failed to prove that it was cancelled and
pursuant thereto the respondent's predecessor
refunded the amount, that the Patta granted was in
relation to the suit land, that the respondent was in
possession of the suit land.
5
12) The appellant filed second appeal before the
High Court. The High Court, by impugned
judgment, dismissed the appeal and upheld the
judgment/decree of the First Appellate Court giving
rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special
leave before this Court by the defendant, i.e., Nagar
Palika.
13) Heard Mr. Puneet Jain, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Dushyant Parashar, learned
counsel for the respondent.
14) Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
find no merit in the appeal.
15) This is a case, which does not involve any
question of law much less substantial question of
law what to say any question relating to public
importance.
16) When two Courts, namely, First Appellate
Court and the High Court found no merit in the
appeal and confirmed the findings of fact then, in
6
our opinion, such concurrent findings are binding
on this Court.
17) It is more so when such findings are neither
found to be against the pleadings nor the evidence
nor any provisions of law and nor so found perverse
to the extent that no judicial person can ever so
record.
18) It is not in dispute as now one can say that the
respondent's predecessor-in-title was granted Patta
in relation to the suit land on payment. It is also
not in dispute that the respondent is the grandson
of original allottee. It is also not in dispute that the
appellant (defendant) though took a stand that the
Patta in question was cancelled and money returned
but the appellant could not prove it with the aid of
any evidence. It is also not in dispute that though
the appellant took a stand that the Patta granted to
the respondent's predecessor-in-title did not relate
to the suit land but of some other land, the
appellant also failed to prove even this fact with the
7
aid of any evidence.
19) The aforementioned stand taken by the
appellant, in our view, was required to be proved by
the appellant because the burden to prove these
facts was on them but they failed to prove any of the
issues though raised.
20) In our opinion, the respondent (plaintiff) was
able to make out all the three necessary ingredients
for grant of permanent injunction with the aid of
evidence, namely, the prima facie case, the balance
of convenience and the irreparable loss and injury,
if the injunction is not granted to him. Since the
respondent held a Patta of the suit land, there was a
prima facie case in his favour. Secondly, he was
also held to be in possession of the suit land and
hence the other two ingredients, namely, the
balance of convenience and irreparable loss and
injury, were also in his favour. It is for these
reasons, in our view, the plaintiff was rightly held
entitled to claim permanent injunction against the
8
appellant (defendant) in relation to the suit land.
21) We, therefore, find no ground to interfere in
any of the factual findings recorded by the two
Courts below nor we find any merit in any of the
arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant,
which were only based on facts and evidence.
22) This Court cannot appreciate the evidence
again de novo while hearing this appeal. Though it
is not permissible, yet we probe the evidence with a
view to find out any error in the impugned judgment
calling our interference. We, however, find it none.
23) In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no
merit in the appeal, which fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
………...................................J.
[R.K. AGRAWAL]
…...……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi;
October 10, 2017
9
ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.2 SECTION XV
(For Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 10833/2010
NAGAR PALIKA RAISINGHNAGAR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAMESHWAR LAL & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 10-10-2017 This appeal was called on for
pronouncement of judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Surya Kant, AOR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
pronounced the judgment of the Bench
comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal
and His Lordship.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the
signed reportable judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(NEETU KHAJURIA)
COURT MASTER
(ASHA SONI)
BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file
10
