1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:JUDGMENT:
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.178/2009.
(Anil Mahatma Vs. Rajasthan Mahila Vidhyalay)
DATE OF JUDGMENT : July 10, 2009
PRESENT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
______________________________________
Mr. Sandeep Shah for the appellant.
In this second appeal filed under Section 100, C.P.C.,
the appellant-plaintiff is challenging judgment and decree
dated 31.03.2009 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.3,
Udaipur in Civil Appeal No.1/2009, whereby, the learned
first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellant and upheld the judgment and decree dated
20.11.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Udaipur City
(South), Udaipur in Civil Original Case No.372/1999
whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by the
appellant-plaintiff was dismissed.
According to facts, the suit for permanent injunction
was filed by the appellant with the pleading that he is sub-
tenant of one Jagdish and he is in possession with the
consent of the respondent landlord. Learned trial Court,
2
after considering the evidence of D.W.-1 Jagdish Sindhi
and other material evidence on record, arrived at the
finding upon issue No.1 that original tenant has specifically
disputed the fact that the plaintiff-appellant is his sub-
tenant. Therefore, after considering the entire facts of the
case, the learned trial Court reached to the conclusion that
no decree for permanent injunction can be passed against
the respondent landlord. The said finding given by the
trial Court in the judgment dated 20.11.2008 in Civil
Original Case No.372/1999 was further upheld by the
learned first appellate Court vide judgment dated
31.03.2009 in Civil Appeal No.1/2009.
Having perused both the judgments impugned, I am
of the opinion that no question of law emerges in this
second appeal. There is concurrent finding of fact
recorded after due appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence coming on record that plaintiff has failed to prove
that he is sub-lettee. Such finding does not require any
interference.
This second appeal is, therefore, accordingly
dismissed.
(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.
Ojha, a.