CSA 292/09 Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Satya Narain and others (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.292/2009 Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Satya Narain and others Date Of Judgment :: 19th August, 2009 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. J.P. Goyal, for appellant. ....... By the Court :- This is second appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 20/3/2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Baran in Civil Appeal No.14/2006 whereby the judgment and decree dated 15/2/2006 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anta, District Baran has been affirmed by which the suit of the plaintiff for mandatory and prohibitory permanent injunction was dismissed. 2. The controversy involved in the present matter in nut shell is that the plaintiff claims himself to be the owner of the disputed plot on the basis of the patta issued to him by the Gram Panchayat Palayatha on 13/1/1999 whereas according to the defendants the said patta is bogus one since it was got issued in favour of the plaintiff with connivance of the Gram Panchayat and otherwise also the said 'patta' was cancelled by CSA 292/09 Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Satya Narain and others (2) the resolution dated 26/6/1999 passed by the Gram Panchayat. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues and after recording the evidence and hearing the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant was also dismissed by the first appellate court and the judgment and decree of the trial court was affirmed. Hence, this second appeal by the plaintiff- appellant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the point of admission and perused the impugned judgments of both the courts below. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the courts below have not considered the evidence and material in right perspective whereas plaintiff has amply proved that he is the owner of the disputed plot which was alloted to him by the Gram Panchayat. 6. I have considered the above submissions in the light of the impugned judgments. Both the courts below have considered entire evidence and material on record and found that said plot had already been alloted to defendant no.1 Satyanarayan and defendant no.2 Mohan Lal in the year 1993 and they were in possession and the patta issued in favour of the plaintiff on 13/1/1999 was cancelled by Gram Panchayat Palayatha vide its resolution dated 26/6/1999. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality or CSA 292/09 Rameshwar Dayal Vs. Satya Narain and others (3) impropriety in the impugned judgments. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. 7. Consequently, this second appeal along with stay application is dismissed at the admission stage. (J.R. Goyal),J. VS Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. D78