Shyam Das vs Jeeva Ram
2021 Latest Caselaw 10593 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 255/2019

1. Shyam Das S/o Late Shri Tikam Das, Aged About 46 Years, B/c Vaishnav, R/o Jalore, District Jalore.

2. Shanti Devi W/o Late Shri Tikam Das, Aged About 66 Years, B/c Vaishnav, R/o Jalore, District Jalore.

----Appellants Versus

1. Jeeva Ram S/o Mandas, B/c Vaishnav, R/o Sirana, District Pali.

2. Mangilal S/o Shri Nadaram Ji, B/c Mali, R/o Jalore, District Jalore.

3. Mohandas S/o Shri Durgadas, B/c Sant, R/o Mudtara, Sili, District- Jalore.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)           :   Mr. Amit Mehta.
For Respondent(s)          :



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                    Order

12/07/2021

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree

dated 18.03.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jalore and

judgment and decree dated 08.07.2019 passed by the Judge,

Family Court, Jalore, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for

permanent injunction has been dismissed and the first appeal filed

has also been dismissed respectively.

The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction, inter alia,

with the submission that they were in possession of the suit

property, which was not transferred by their father/husband and if

any sale-deed exists, the same is fraudulent.

(2 of 3) [CSA-255/2019]

The suit was contested by the defendants by producing

registered sale-deed of the suit property executed by the plaintiffs'

father/husband.

After the evidence was recorded by the trial court and the

parties were heard, the trial court came to the conclusion that the

suit property was transferred by the plaintiffs' father/husband and

their possession was that of as trespasser and, consequently,

dismissed the suit.

Feeling aggrieved, a first appeal was filed. The first appellate

court came to the conclusion that the finding recorded pertaining

to the transfer in favour of the defendants did not require any

interference, however, as the first appellate court came to the

conclusion that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit

property, it directed that they may not be dispossessed without

undertaking due process of law.

Learned counsel for the appellants attempted to make

submissions that both the courts wrongly came to the conclusion

that the suit property was transferred by the plaintiffs'

father/husband and, therefore, the said aspect gives rise to

substantial question of law.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the appellant and have perused the judgments of two courts

below as well as the record of both the courts below.

The respondents have produced the registered sale-deed

executed by the plaintiffs' father/husband, despite production of

registered sale-deed, no prayer was made in the pending suit

and/or a separate suit seeking cancellation of the sale-deed has

been filed and as such, the two courts below were justified in

(3 of 3) [CSA-255/2019]

coming to the conclusion that the property in question was

transferred in favour of the defendants.

As a finding has been recorded that the plaintiffs are in

possession of the suit property, the first appellate court has

granted relief, which at best could be granted in the circumstances

of the case and, therefore, the judgments impugned do not give

rise to any substantial question of law.

There is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore,

dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

24-PKS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)