REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.10833 OF 2010

Nagar Palika Raisinghnagar      ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Rameshwar Lal & Anr.   …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal  is filed by the defendant against

the  final  judgment  and  order  dated  03.11.2006

passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  for

Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Regular Second

Appeal  No.70  of  1989  whereby  the  High  Court

dismissed  the  appeal  filed  by  the  defendant  and

affirmed  the  judgment/decree  passed  by  the  first

Appellate  Court  dated  17.04.1989  in  Appeal  Civil

No.  19 of  1988 arising out  of  Civil  Suit  No.28 of

1

1983 decided on 06.09.1988 passed by the Munsif

and Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar.  

2) Facts of the case are simple so also the point

involved  in  the  appeal.   They,  however,  need

mention in brief infra.

3) The  appellant  is  Nagar  Palika  Raisinghnagar

(Rajasthan).   The  appellant  is  the  defendant

whereas  the  respondent  is  the  plaintiff  in  the

aforementioned civil  suit  out of  which this appeal

arises.  

4) The  dispute  relates  to  a  small  piece  of  land

(100x100 sq. ft.) situated at Gaushala Block, Ward

No.10 (earlier known as ‘E Block’), Raisingh Nagar

(hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”).  

5) The  respondent  (plaintiff)  claiming  to  be  the

holder  and in  possession of  the  suit  land on the

strength of Patta issued in favour of his grand father

- Pokhar Ram by the appellant herein way back in

the  year  1957  vide  Resolution  No.7  dated

13.02.1957 filed a suit against the appellant out of

2

which  this  appeal  arises  seeking  permanent

injunction  restraining  the  appellant  from

dispossessing him from the suit land.  

6) In substance, the case of  the respondent, as

set out in the plaint, was that the appellant - Nagar

Palika had originally  allotted  the  suit  land to  the

respondent’s grandfather - Pokhar Ram as back as

in 1957 against the payment of consideration which

had duly paid by Pokhar Ram to the appellant vide

receipt No.51 dated 18.03.1957.  

7) It  was  alleged  that  Pokhar  Ram  then

constructed his hut on the suit land and continued

to live therein during his lifetime.  On his death, the

respondent's father continued to live therein during

his lifetime and then on his death, the respondent

inherited the suit land/hut and continued to remain

in its occupation till the date of filing of the suit.  

8) According to the respondent, the need to file

the suit arose because he had some apprehension

that  the  appellant-Nagar  Palika  which  had  taken

3

out a drive to oust some encroachers from the land

belonging to Nagar Palika in the Municipal area may

dispossess the respondent also from the suit land

treating him as an encroacher on the suit land.  It

was for  this  reason,  the respondent filed the civil

suit  to  seek  permanent  injunction  against  the

appellant in relation to the suit land on the strength

of  Patta  already  granted  in  favour  of  his

predecessor-in-title by the appellant.

9) The  appellant  filed  its  written  statement.

While denying the respondent's claim, the appellant

inter alia alleged that the respondent's grandfather

was given some other land, that the grant so made

in relation to the said land was cancelled and the

money received was also refunded to him, that the

suit land is a Nagar Palika land and the respondent

with the help of some employees of the Nagar Palika

got  the  suit  land un-authorizedly  allotted  to  him,

and  lastly,  the  suit  land  is  needed  for  public

purpose.  

4

10) Issues were framed. Parties adduced evidence.

The Trial  Court,  vide judgment dated 06.09.1988,

dismissed  the  suit.  The  respondent  (plaintiff),  felt

aggrieved, filed first appeal before the First Appellate

Court.  The  First  Appellate  Court,  vide

judgment/decree  dated  17.04.1989,  allowed  the

appeal  and  while  setting  aside  of  the

judgment/decree  of  the  Trial  Court  decreed  the

respondent's  suit  and  accordingly  granted

permanent injunction, as prayed by the respondent,

against the appellant in relation to the suit land.  

11) The  First  Appellate  Court  held  that  the

respondent's  grandfather  was  granted  Patta  in

relation to the suit land by the appellant; that the

appellant failed to prove that it was cancelled and

pursuant  thereto  the  respondent's  predecessor

refunded the amount, that the Patta granted was in

relation to the suit land, that the respondent was in

possession of the suit land.

5

12) The  appellant  filed  second appeal  before  the

High  Court.  The  High  Court,  by  impugned

judgment,  dismissed  the  appeal  and  upheld  the

judgment/decree of the First Appellate Court giving

rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special

leave before this Court by the defendant, i.e., Nagar

Palika.  

13) Heard Mr. Puneet Jain, learned counsel for the

appellant  and  Mr.  Dushyant  Parashar,  learned

counsel for the respondent.

14) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

find no merit in the appeal.

15) This  is  a  case,  which  does  not  involve  any

question of law much less substantial  question of

law  what  to  say  any  question  relating  to  public

importance.  

16) When  two  Courts,  namely,  First  Appellate

Court  and the  High Court  found no merit  in  the

appeal and confirmed the findings of fact then, in

6

our opinion, such concurrent findings are binding

on this Court.  

17) It is more so when such findings are neither

found to be against the pleadings nor the evidence

nor any provisions of law and nor so found perverse

to  the  extent  that  no  judicial  person can ever  so

record.

18) It is not in dispute as now one can say that the

respondent's predecessor-in-title was granted Patta

in relation to the suit land on payment.  It is also

not in dispute that the respondent is the grandson

of original allottee.  It is also not in dispute that the

appellant (defendant) though took a stand that the

Patta in question was cancelled and money returned

but the appellant could not prove it with the aid of

any evidence.  It is also not in dispute that though

the appellant took a stand that the Patta granted to

the respondent's predecessor-in-title did not relate

to  the  suit  land  but  of  some  other  land,  the

appellant also failed to prove even this fact with the

7

aid of any evidence.  

19) The  aforementioned  stand  taken  by  the

appellant, in our view, was required to be proved by

the  appellant  because  the  burden  to  prove  these

facts was on them but they failed to prove any of the

issues though raised.  

20) In our opinion, the respondent (plaintiff)  was

able to make out all the three necessary ingredients

for  grant of  permanent  injunction with the  aid of

evidence, namely, the prima facie  case, the balance

of convenience and the irreparable loss and injury,

if  the injunction is  not  granted to him.  Since the

respondent held a Patta of the suit land, there was a

prima facie case in his favour.   Secondly,  he was

also held to be in possession of the suit land and

hence  the  other  two  ingredients,  namely,  the

balance  of  convenience  and  irreparable  loss  and

injury,  were  also  in  his  favour.   It  is  for  these

reasons, in our view, the plaintiff was rightly held

entitled to claim permanent injunction against the

8

appellant (defendant) in relation to the suit land.  

21) We,  therefore,  find no ground to  interfere  in

any  of  the  factual  findings  recorded  by  the  two

Courts below nor we find any merit in any of the

arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant,

which were only based on facts and evidence.  

22) This  Court  cannot  appreciate  the  evidence

again  de novo while hearing this appeal. Though it

is not permissible, yet we probe the evidence with a

view to find out any error in the impugned judgment

calling our interference.  We, however, find it none.  

23) In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no

merit in the appeal, which fails and is accordingly

dismissed.

         ………...................................J.

[R.K. AGRAWAL]              

                        …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi;

      October 10, 2017  

9

ITEM NO.1501         COURT NO.2               SECTION XV (For Judgment)                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal  No(s).  10833/2010 NAGAR PALIKA RAISINGHNAGAR                 Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS RAMESHWAR LAL & ANR.                        Respondent(s)

Date : 10-10-2017 This appeal was called on for  pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR                     For Respondent(s) Mr. Surya Kant, AOR                                          

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre pronounced  the  judgment  of  the  Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and  His Lordship.  

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

Pending  application(s),  if  any,  shall stand disposed of.

     (NEETU KHAJURIA)         COURT MASTER

    (ASHA SONI)     BRANCH OFFICER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file

10