CSA 271/08 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur J U D G M E N T In S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.271/2008 Hanuman Prasad Dusad Vs. Smt. Suraj Devi Date Of Judgment :: 20th March, 2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. Sudesh Bansal, for appellant. ........ By the Court :- This is plaintiff's second appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 9/1/2008 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil First Appeal No.6/2007 (328/2002) whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 9/10/2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) (West), Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.88/2004 by which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed has been upheld. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the CSA 271/08 (2) plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondent-defendant in relation to one house bearing no.375 situated at Neendar Rao Ji Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur and one shop no.29 at Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur alleging himself to be one of the co-sharer in these immovable properties. 3. The defendant-respondent denied the claim of the plaintiff, although it was admitted that the house in question was purchased by Shri Kalyan Bux wherein the plaintiff is residing. She stated that after the death of her husband Shri Kalyan Bux by virtue of will dated 13/8/1977 she became the absolute owner and the possession of the plaintiff was as a licensee. It was further stated that shop was purchased by her vide registered sale deed dated 15/10/1970 and accordingly both the properties were claimed by the defendant to be her own property without any share of the plaintiff. 4. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and after CSA 271/08 (3) recording the evidence and hearing the parties decreed the suit in part in regard to the disputed house but dismissed the suit in relation to shop in question. 5. The appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, this second appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused both the judgments of the learned courts below. 7. It is not disputed that suit shop is in the name of respondent Suraj Devi which has been purchased by her vide registered sale deed. There is concurrent finding of fact of both the learned courts below. There appears to be no substantial question of law involved in this second appeal. 8. Accordingly, this second appeal being devoid of any force, is hereby dismissed along with the stay application. (J.R. Goyal),J. V.S. Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. D46