NAGAR PALIKA RAISINGHNAGAR versus RAMESHWAR LAL & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 10 S.C.R. 133 · Decided: 10-10-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 10 S.C.R. 133 
NAGAR PALIKA RAISINGHNAGAR 
v. 
RAMESHWAR LAL & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10833 of2010) 
OCTOBER 10, 2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Injunction: Suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiff-
respondent on the strength of Patta issued in favour of grand father 
A 
B 
of the respondent, seeking restraint against the appellant from 
C 
dispossessing the respondent from the suit land - Trial court 
dismissed the suit - First appellate court set aside the order of trial 
court holding that the respondent's grandfather was granted Patta 
in relation to the suit land by appellant; that the appellant failed to 
prove that it was cancelled and pursuant thereto the respondent'.~ 
predecessor refunded the amount; that the Patta granted was in 
D 
relation to the suit land; and that the respondent was in possession 
of the suit land - High Court upheld the order of first appellate 
court - On appeal, held: The respondent 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 injw:v, if the injunction 
is not granted to him - Since the respondent held Patta of the suit 
land, there was a prima facie case in his favour - He was also 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 - Respondent was rightly held entitled to 
claim permanent injunction against the appellant in relation to the 
suit land. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. When two Courts, namely, First Appellate Court 
and the High Court found no merit in the appeal and confirmed 
the findings of fact then, such concurrent findings are binding on 
this Court. 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 n'o judicial person 
can ever so record. [Paras 16, 17] (137-B] 
133 
E 
F 
G 
H 
134 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 10 S.C.R. 
2. It is 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 aid of any evidence. The said stand taken by the 
appellant, 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. [Paras 18, 19] [137-C-E] 
3. 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 fude case, the balance 
of convenience and the irreparable loss and injury, if the injuncti(ln 
D 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, the plaintiff was rightly held entitled to claim permanent 
E 
injunction against the appellant (defendant) in relation to the suit 
land. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere in any of the factual 
findings recorded by the two Courts below. [Paras 20, 21] [137-
E-H] 
F 
G 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. I 0833 
of2010. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 03. I I .2006 passed by 
the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Regular 
Second Appeal No.70 of 1989. 
Puneet Jain, Ms. Gaushika Sharma, Abhinav Gupta, Ms.Priyal 
Jain, Harsh Jain (for Ms.Pratibha Jain), Advs. for the Appellant 
Dushyant Parashar, Pranv Vyas, Surya Kant, Advs. for the 
Respondents 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
NAGAR PALIKA RAISINGHNAGAR v. RAMESHWAR LAL & 
135 
ANR. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. This appeal is filed by the 
A 
defendant against the final judgment and order 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.