Babu Lal vs Revad And Opthers
2022 Latest Caselaw 1155 Raj/2

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 170/2016

Babu Lal son of Ram Narayan, R/o village Siroli Dhahla Ki Dhani,
Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
Presently R/o Hemlyawas, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa.
                                                             ----Appellant-Plaintiff
                                      Versus
1. Revad son of Rampal
2. Kalu son of Rampal
3. Chhoti wife of Rampal
   R/o village Torda, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa.
4. Assistant Engineer, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Didwana,
Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa.
                                                  ----Respondents-Defendants

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal, Advocate (through VC)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

Order

31/01/2022

This second appeal has been filed by the appellant -

plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') against the judgment and decree

dated 02.03.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Lalsot,

District Dausa (for short 'the first Appellate Court') in Civil Regular

Appeal No.16/2013, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-

defendants (for short, 'the defendants') has been allowed and the

judgment and decree dated 01.08.2012 passed by the Civil Judge

(Junior Division) (for short 'the trial Court') in Civil Suit

No.11/2008 partly decreeing the plaintiff's suit for mandatory and

permanent injunction has been set-aside.

(2 of 4) [CSA-170/2016]

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit

for mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants,

wherein it was averred that the suit land situated in village

Hemlyawas Tehsil Lalsot, Distt. Dausa was sold by the defendants

to the plaintiff by way of registered sale deed and the plaintiff is

the recorded khatedar tenant of the suit land. It was further

pleaded that on 20.10.2005 an agreement to sell was executed by

the defendants no. 1 to 3 in favour of plaintiff on a stamp paper of

Rs. 100/-, in which it was mentioned that entire land along with

trees, plants, water tank, kachcha and pacca house, electricity

alongwith connection, well and kothi, which were in the suit land,

were sold by the defendants no. 1 to 3 in a sale consideration of

Rs. 32,69,700/- @ Rs. 3,78,000/- to the plaintiff. It was further

averred that subsequently the defendants in collusion with

defendant No.4 wanted to shift the electricity connection to some

other place.

The defendants No. 1 to 3 filed their written statement

wherein it was pleaded that on 22.10.2005 the defendants sold

1/4th part of their khatedari land to the plaintiff by registered sale

deed. The defendants sold their khatedari land to the plaintiff and

they never sold electricity connection to the plaintiff.

On the basis of the pleading of the parties, necessary

issues were framed. Evidence was led.

After hearing the arguments, the trial Court vide its

judgment dated 01.08.2012 partly decreed the plaintiff's suit. On

an appeal filed by the defendants, the Appellate Court vide its

judgment and decree dated 2.3.2016 allowed the appeal, set

aside the judgment and decree dated 1.8.2012 passed by the trial

(3 of 4) [CSA-170/2016]

Court and dismissed the plaintiff's suit for mandatory and

permanent injunction. Hence, this second appeal has been filed.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that on

20.10.2005 an agreement was executed by which defendants no.

1 to 3 sold 1/4th share of their land to the plaintiff in the sale

consideration of Rs.32,69,700/-. The said agreement was got

registered in the office of Sub Registrar on 22.10.2005. However,

the First Appellate Court did not consider this aspect of the matter

and committed material illegality. Hence, impugned judgment

dated 02.03.2016 passed by the First Appellate Court deserves to

be dismissed.

Heard. Considered.

From the material on record, it is evident that although

in the agreement to sell dated 20.10.2005 (Ex.-1) it was

mentioned that the defendants sold their aforesaid land alongwith

whatever was attached therewith in a sale consideration of

Rs.32,69,700/- but registered sale deed, which was a

consequence of purported agreement to sell was not produced

before the Court nor any plausible reason was furnished for not

producing the same before the Court. It is also evident that the

plaintiff failed to prove the genuineness of agreement to sell (Ex.-

1). It is also evident that as per the written statement filed by

defendants, the said electricity connection had already been

shifted from Torda before filing the suit.

Indisputably, the electricity connection was in the name

of defendants no. 1 to 3 and on their application, the said

electricity connection was shifted from Torda.

There is a finding of fact of first appellate court, which

is based on proper appreciation of evidence and material on

(4 of 4) [CSA-170/2016]

record. No question of law much less substantial question of law is

involved in this appeal. For this reason, this second appeal is liable

to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, the stay

application and all pending applications, if any, also stand

dismissed accordingly.

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

DK/1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)