PRAHLAD SINGH Vs. BHAWANI SINGH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-defendant has filed the present appeal, challenging the judgment & decree dated 21.07.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court") in Civil Regular Appeal No.12/2008, whereby the appellate court has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment & decree dated 11.03.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bandikui, District Dausa (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.7/95.

(2.) The respondent No.1-plaintiff had filed the suit against the present appellant and the respondent Nos.2 to 9 seeking partition and permanent injunction in respect of the disputed part of the land shown by green colour and marked as BDLNO in the map annexed to the plaint, alleging interalia that the property situated at village Golada Basada, belonging to their ancestors, was already partitioned, and the plaintiff and the defendants had constructed their residential houses therein. According to the plaintiff, the land shown by green colour had fallen into the share of the plaintiff, and the land shown by yellow colour was not partitioned, in which the plaintiff had 1/2 share. As per the further case of the respondent-plaintiff, the defendants were putting up construction in the part of land shown by green colour which belonged to the plaintiff, and therefore the suit for partition and permanent injunction was filed. The appellant-defendant alongwith other defendants had resisted the suit by filing the written statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint, and further contending interalia that the disputed part of the property was already partitioned, as per the oral agreement made in presence of reputed persons of the village, and the defendants were raising construction in the part of the properties which had fallen into their share. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record partly decreed the suit of the respondent-plaintiff by holding interalia that the partition had already taken place between the parties in the samwat year of 2021, and the land shown in green colour marked as BDLNO in the map belonged to the plaintiff, whereas the land shown in yellow colour belonged to the defendants. The trial court therefore granted permanent injunction restraining the appellant-defendant and other defendants from carrying out any construction on the part of property which had fallen into the share of the respondent-plaintiff and also directed the defendants to remove the construction put in the plaintiff's land. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant had preferred the appeal before the appellate court, which has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree.

(3.) The only contention raised by the learned counsel Mr. Rajneesh Gupta for the appellant is that both the courts below had mis-appreciated the evidence on record while granting the permanent and mandatory injunction against the appellant. The Court does not find any substance in the said submission. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the appellant-defendant was trying to encroach upon the part of the land which had fallen into the share of the respondent No.1. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below. There is also no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. The present appeal being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.