Kuldeep vs Jeeta Ram
2021 Latest Caselaw 19354 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 500/2021

Kuldeep S/o Kishori Lal, Aged About 43 Years, Gijgarh, Tehsil Sikray, District Dausa At Present Resident Of Chak 1 Pb, Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner

----Appellant Versus

1. Jeeta Ram S/o Lal Chand, Chak 1 Pb, Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner

2. Tara Ram S/o Lal Chand, Chak 1 Pb, Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner

3. Jeeto D/o Lal Chand, Chak 1 Pb, Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner

4. Mito D/o Lal Chand, Chak 1 Pb, Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner

5. Pappi Bai D/o Lal Chand, Chak 1 Pb, Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner

6. Surti D/o Lal Chand, Chak 1 Pb, Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner Respondent Nos.2 to 6 R/o 29 as (B) Tehsil Ghadsana, Dsittrict Sriganganagar, through power of attorney holder Jeeta Ram S/o late Shri Lal Chand, R/o Chak 1 PB Tehsil Pugal, District Bikaner

7. Lrs Of Biru Ram S/o Ganesha Ram, Godas, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu 1/1 Raj Kumar S/o Late Shri Biru Ram 1/2 Tara Chand S/o Late Shri Biru Ram 1/3 Madan Lal S/o Late Shri Biru Ram 1/4 Sumitra D/o S/o Late Shri Biru Ram All by caste Nayak R/o Godas, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu

8. State Of Rajasthan-through District Collector, Bikaner

9. Deputy Colonization, Tehsildar, Pugal, District Bikaner

10. Revenue Tehsildar, Pugal, District Bikaner

----Respondents

(2 of 3) [CFA-500/2021]

For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

17/12/2021

This appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the

judgment and decree dated 29.10.2021, whereby the registered

sale-deed of appellant dated 12.06.2002 registered on 18.07.2002

has been declared as null and void while passing decree for

specific performance of an agreement dated 19.01.1991.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this

agreement dated 19.01.1991 is not genuine and suit for specific

performance has wrongly been decreed and consequentially his

liable and willful sale deed has wrongly been declared as null and

void.

Heard. Admit.

Call for the record.

Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also, returnable

in ten weeks.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay application.

Since the appellant himself has admitted that after filing of

the present suit, he has been dispossessed from the property in

question though by virtue of his sale deed, he is owner/title holder

of the suit property and presently the possession of the suit

property is lying with the plaintiffs. Considering this aspect of the

matter, it is directed that the operation of impugned judgment and

decree to the extent of declaring the sale deed of appellant as null

and void and for execution of sale deed pursuant to the

(3 of 3) [CFA-500/2021]

agreement dated 19.01.1991 shall remain stayed and both the

parties are directed to maintain status quo as to possession and

alienation as it exists today.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

141-Taruna/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)