1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.426/2009 Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Nipaniya Panchayat Samiti,Chhabra Vs. Ramkaran & Anr. S.B.Civil Second Appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 100 & 101 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 14.5.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Chhabra, District, Baran (Raj.) in Civil Appeal No.06/2007 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant- defendant and maintained the judgment and decree dated 16.1.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Chhabra in Civil Suit No.28/2000. **** DATE OF JUDGMENT: October 09, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.P.PATHAK Mr.J.K.Singhi. for the appellant BY THE COURT: 1. This is civil second appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 100 & 101 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 14.5.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Chhabra, District, Baran (Raj.) in Civil Appeal No.06/2007 whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant- defendant and maintained the judgment and decree dated 16.1.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Chhabra in Civil Suit No.28/2000. 2 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging therein that he purchased the suit land from one Radhey Shyam on 4.4.1980 and defendant-appellant were bent upon to take possession of the suit land and to sell the suit land therefore put it on auction without having any right or ownership in the disputed piece of land. A prayer was made for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant-appellant not to auction/confirmation of the sale of the suit land. The defendants in their written statement denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that land belongs to Panchayat, therefore, the plaintiff was having no right on the suit land and the suit was liable to be dismissed. The learned trial court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed five issues including the relief and after recording evidence of both sides and on hearing final submissions decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 16.2007. The defendant having dis-satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree preferred regular appeal, which came to be decided by learned Addl. District Judge, Chhabra, District, Baran, who vide judgment and decree dated 14.5.2009 dismissed the appeal and maintained the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Hence this second appeal has been preferred. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the trial court as well as the appellate court both committed illegality in appreciating the evidence and considering the land not of the 3 defendant-appellant, therefore, in the present appeal substantial question of law involved is that as to whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit and the learned appellate court committed no illegality in upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the record. 5. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned trial court reveals that specific issue No.3 was framed in relation to the land which was put on auction. Another issue relevant was framed was whether the plaintiff purchased the land under valid registered sale-deed, which was being used by him and the land was purchased in the year 1980. The findings of the learned trial court are to the effect that under a registered sale-deed plaintiff purchased the piece of land description of which has been made in the plaint. This aspect of the matter has been proved by the witnesses of the plaintiff namely Shri Krishan and Brijmohan respectively P.W.2 & P.W.3. The learned trial court further found that no evidence was produced to show that the land was in any manner was of Panchayat and in this regard several opportunities were given to the Gram Panchayat. The learned trial court further found that since some complaints were made to Panchayat that on the disputed piece of land, some persons were throwing their dirt and filth and also waste materials, therefore, the Panchayat decided to put the land on auction. The 4 trial court on the basis of validly proved documents found that plaintiff is owner of the piece of land and auction conducted by the Panchayat was considered to be against the provisions of law, thus, decided the above issues No.1 & 3 in favour of the plaintiff. The trial court further decided other issues also in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant-appellant. On appeal, the appellate court has concurred with the finding recorded by the trial court. 6. After carefully considering the material available on record and after taking into consideration the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any illegality being committed either by the trial court or by the appellate court in relation to appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence. In the absence of any document to show that the land in dispute was of the Panchayat then in that circumstance it cannot be said that the trial court committed illegality in passing the decree in favour of the plaintiff. The contentions raised by the learned counsel being devoid of merit are liable to be rejected. 7. In view of foregoing discussion, there does not appear any point of law involved in the case. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. The appeal stands dismissed. (S.P.PATHAK) J. BKS/-