Rajasthan High Court
Bharpai Devi D/O Premraj W/O ... vs Badami Devi W/O Mohanlal on 1 July, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 107/2022
Bharpai Devi D/o Premraj W/o Laxminarayn Khatik, Aged About
70 Years, R/o Neemrana, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar,
Rajasthan At Present Residing At Kabadi Wali Gali, Behror, Tehsil
Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Badami Devi W/o Mohanlal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Neemrana, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
2. Sub Registrar, Neemrana, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
3. Champa Devi D/o Premraj W/o Jagdish Khatik, R/o
Neemrana, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar, Rajasthan, At
Present Residing At Kabadi Wali Gali, Behror, Tehsil
Behror, District Alwar (Deceased) Through Her Legal
Representative-
3/1. Tarachand S/o Jagdish, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Kabadi
Wali Gali, Behror, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
3/2. Satyanarayn S/o Jagdish, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Kabadi Wali Gali, Behror, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar,
Rajasthan.
3/3. Niranjan S/o Jagdish, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Kabadi
Wali Gali, Behror, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
3/4. Krishna Alias Chidiya D/o Jagdish, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Kabadi Wali Gali, Behror, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gajender Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
01/07/2022
1. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing judgment and
decree dated 21.04.2022 passed in Civil First Appeal No.1/2019
by the Additional District Judge No.1, Behror, District Alwar,
affirming the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2018 passed in
(2 of 3) [CSA-107/2022]
Civil Suit No.20/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge, Behror, District
Alwar whereby his suit for cancellation of sale deed dated
21.12.2010 and permanent injunction has been dismissed.
2. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the record.
3. It appears from record that registered sale deed dated
21.12.2010 was executed by appellant-plaintiff in favour of
respondent No.1- Badami Devi in relation to agricultural land in
question and in pursuance thereof, mutation in favour of
respondent No.1- purchaser had sanctioned in the revenue record
on 31.12.2010. Plaintiff instituted the present suit on 16.09.2014,
challenging the registered sale deed on the ground that sale deed
was got executed by playing fraud and in the garb of seeking
correction in the revenue record. As per Article 59 of the
Limitation Act, three years limitation is provided to seek
cancellation or set aside an instrument. On merits, plaintiff
miserably failed to prove that the sale deed was executed by
playing fraud. As per the sale deed the entire sale consideration
has been paid to plaintiff and the possession of agricultural land
has also been transferred, to the defendant-purchaser.
4. Both Courts, on appreciation of evidence on record have
dismissed the plaintiff's suit for cancellation of sale deed dated
21.12.2010 on merits as well as on the ground of limitation.
5. The findings recorded by two Courts below are findings of
fact and do not give rise to formulation of any substantial question
of law. In absence of involvement of any substantial question of
law, the second appeal cannot be entertained for exercising
jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. The substantial questions of
law as proposed by appellant-plaintiff are essentially questions of
fact, which requires reappreciation of evidence. Reappreciation of
(3 of 3) [CSA-107/2022]
evidence is not permissible within the scope of Section 100 of
CPC, unless and until there is some illegality or perversity in
findings. None of the question of law, falls within purview of
substantial question of law. In order to exercise the scope of
Section 100 of CPC, involvement/formulation of substantial
question of law is sine qua non. Otherwise also, it is a case of
concurrent findings of facts, which even if erroneous, cannot be
disturbed in exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC as has
been held in case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai
Sopan Gujar [(1999) 3 SCC 722] and catena of other
judgments passed in case of Pakeerappa Rai Vs. Seethamma
Hengsu & Ors., [(2001) 9 SCC 521], Thulasidhara & Anr. Vs.
Narayanappa & Ors., [(2019) 6 SCC 409], Bholaram Vs.
Ameerchand, [(1981) 2 SCC 414], Ishwar Das Jain Vs.
Sohan Lal, [(2000) 1 SCC 434], State of Madhya Pradesh
Vs. Sabal Singh & Ors., [(2019) 10 SCC 595] and
C.Doddanarayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C.Jayarama Reddy and
Ors. [(2020) 4 SCC 659]. Since no substantial questions of law
are involved in present appeal thus, same is not liable to be
entertained.
6. Accordingly, the second appeal is found to be devoid of
merits and the same is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to
costs.
7. Stay application and any other pending application(s), if any,
also stand disposed of.
8. Record of the two Courts below be sent back forthwith.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
NITIN /12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
