AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant second appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2015 passed in Civil Regular First Appeal
No.61/2011 whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Kota
(North).
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiffappellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the defendants-respondents. It is
stated in the plaint that the plaintiffappellant purchased plot No.3 admeasuring 30fx70f situated at village Kunhadi, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota.
The plot is a part of the Khasra No.381 admeasuring 0.66 hectare. The said plot was purchased through an agreement dated 09.02.1989 since
then, the appellant was in peaceful possession of the said plot. It is prayed by the plaintiff that a decree for mandatory injunction be passed to the
effect that the defendants be directed to issue Patta of plot No.3 by depositing land conversion charges.
The defendants-respondents No.1 & 4 resisted the suit by filing written statement wherein it is stated that the Khasra No.381 was acquired and
in the revenue record, the same is in the name of Rajasthan Housing Board.
The learned trial court framed as many as five issues in the matter. Both the parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence. After
hearing both the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 07.09.2011 against which the appeal was filed
by the appellant and the same was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 19.10.2015. Hence, this
second appeal.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the land of Khasra No.381(272/355) wherein the disputed plot is situated, was not
acquired by the respondent No.4 and the same is fortified from the notification, Jamabandi and Khasra Milan Kshetraphal itself. The judgments of
both the courts below are perverse and based on non-reading and misreading the evidence and material available on record.
I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
It is revealed from the record that the part of the land bearing No.272/355 (New Khasra No.381) & 273 allegedly purchased by the plaintiff
has been acquired by the defendant No.4, as both the witnesses examined by the plaintiff have clearly admitted that the disputed Khasra number
have already been acquired and proceedings of compensation have already been completed. After the acquisition of suit land, appellant cannot
claim any legal right over the same. Both the courts below have rightly held that since the land in question was acquired prior to purchase by the
plaintiff, he has no right, title or interest in the same. There being concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below, this court is not
inclined to interfere with the same. Mr. D. N. Sharma has failed to point out any question of law much less substantial question of law being
involved in this appeal. Hence, the appeal being devoid of any merits stands dismissed.