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
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
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
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
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
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
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
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
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