Nagar Palika, Raisinghnagar vs Rameshwar Lal on 10 October, 2017

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)                        (ASHA SONI)
        COURT MASTER                         BRANCH OFFICER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file

10

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply