Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Guljar Singh vs Bhagat Singh on 15 December, 2021
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Leave To Appeal No. 6/2019
Guljar Singh S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 75 Years, B/c
Jat Sikh, R/o Village Ladhuwala, Tehsil And District Sri
Ganganagar (Rajasthan)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Bhagat Singh S/o Shri Major Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Chak 25 M.l., Tehsil And District Sri
Ganganagar (Rajasthan)
2. Nirmal Singh S/o Sardar Shri Harnek Singh, Aged About
38 Years, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Village Ladhuwala, Tehsil And
District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)
3. Kulvinder Singh S/o Sardar Shri Harnek Singh, Aged
About 35 Years, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Village Ladhuwala,
Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Trilok Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.R. Goyal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
15/12/2021
For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of
delay in filing the present leave to appeal is allowed.
With the consent of the parties, this leave to appeal is heard
at this stage.
The appellant Guljar Singh has filed the present leave to
appeal to assail the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2018
passed in favour of respondent No.1 and against the respondent
No.2 & 3 by the Additional District Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in
(2 of 3) [CLA-6/2019]
Regular Civil First Appeal No.11/2017 titled as Bhagat Singh Vs.
Nirmal Singh & Anr.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the land
in question was purchased by Darbar Singh and Guljar Singh vide
registered sale-deed dated 27.10.1960 from one Harnek Singh,
who is father of respondents No.2 & 3. It has further been
alleged that since mutation in the revenue record was not entered
into, both the purchasers jointly filed a revenue suit being
No.101/2014 against the respondents No.2 & 3 and others before
the Sub-Divisional Officer, which was decreed in their favour vide
judgment dated 19.11.2018. Thus, on the basis of these
documents, the appellant claims that he and Darbar Singh are the
true owners and have possession over the land in question and
mutation is yet to be opened in their names.
Learned counsel further submits that the respondent No.1
filed a suit for specific performance against respondent No.2 & 3 in
relation to the lands in question on the basis of one agreement to
sale dated 12.11.2012. Though the said civil suit was dismissed
by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 03.01.2017,
however, the first appellate Court decreed the civil suit in favour of
respondent No.1 vide judgment and decree dated 30.01.2018 and
directed the respondents No.2 & 3 for specific performance of
agreement to sale dated 12.11.2012.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the
execution of the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2018 would
adversely affect his rights, and therefore, leave may be granted to
assail the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2018 by way of
second appeal.
(3 of 3) [CLA-6/2019]
Learned counsel for the respondent/decree-holder opposed
the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant and
contended the sale-deed dated 27.10.1960 is illegal and not valid
in law as prevalent that time. He further contends that the
appellant was sleeping in slumber for his right, if any.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of
the opinion that the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2018 has
been passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar
on the basis of admission of respondents No.2 & 3 to execute the
sale-deed in favour of respondent No.1 on the basis of agreement
dated 12.11.2012. The said judgment and decree does not
confer any additional rights. If the appellant claims his rights,
title, possession or interest in the suit properties on the strength
of sale-deed dated 27.10.1960 and on the basis of order dated
19.11.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the appellant is
free to take appropriate remedy available in law.
This Court does not find sufficient reasons to grant leave to
the appellant to assail the judgment and decree dated
18.11.2012.
Accordingly, this leave to appeal is dismissed.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
35-a.asopa/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
