CSA 830/07 (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.830/2007 Manak Chand and another Vs. Smt. Chakka Bai Date Of Judgment :: 9th March, 2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. Virendra Agrawal with Mr. Anirudh Singh, for appellants. ............... BY THE COURT :- This is an appeal by the defendant- appellants under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 17/7/2007 passed by Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Appeal No.66/2005 whereby the appeal filed by the defendant-appellants has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 25/10/2005 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.270/2004 (600/2002) has been affirmed. CSA 830/07 (2) 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-appellants stating therein that the defendants are in possession of the property described in para no.1 of the plaint since 15/8/1985 at monthly rent of Rs.1000/- except the charges for house tax as well as water and electricity and to this effect a rent note was also executed on the terms and conditions mentioned in para 2 of the plaintiff and now she is being paid the rent at the rate of Rs.1100/- per month; that the defendants taking the undue advantage of old and infirm condition of the plaintiff are bent upon to make alteration and substantial change in the suit property and on being denying to do the same they used to quarrel with her and on 12/5/2002 they threatened the plaintiff that they shall construct latrine, bathroom, garage and tube-well (boring) for which they have no right and they took 3-4 labourers to raise the said construction who started to take the measurements then the plaintiff denied them thereupon the defendants CSA 830/07 (3) quarreled with her, therefore a prayer was made to grant a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to raise the said construction in the suit property. 3. The defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that plaintiff herself is causing hurdle in their peaceful possession. The defendants also filed the counter claim for restraining the plaintiff not to disturb the defendants in their peaceful possession and further not to disturb them in using the common latrine bathroom and other facilities. 4. The learned trial court framed the issued and after recording the evidence and hearing the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiff and dismissed the counter claim filed by the defendants. 5. The appeal filed by the defendant- appellants was dismissed by the learned Appellate Court and the judgment and decree of the trial court was affirmed as mentioned here-in-before. Hence, this CSA 830/07 (4) second appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants on the point of admission and perused both the impugned judgments of the learned courts below. 7. There is concurrent finding of fact of both the learned courts below. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the material available on the record, no substantial question of law appears to be involved in this appeal. 9. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed in limine. (J.R. Goyal),J. V.S. Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. D35