Smt Triveni vs Smt Nahani And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2311 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 368/2014

Smt. Triveni W/o Late Shri Ramhet Aged About 65 Years R/o
Village Bhawanpura, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1. Smt. Nahani W/o Shri Hotiram R/o Village Bhawanpura, Tehsil
Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
2. Hoti Ram S/o Shri Charan Singh R/o Village Bhawanpura,
Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
3. Pratap Singh S/o Shri Charan Singh, R/o Village Bhawanpura,
Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
4. Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Khillu Singh R/o Nangla Tula, Tehsil
Roopwas District Bharatpur (Raj.)
                                                               ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Himmat Singh Bikarwar Mr. B.R. Rana

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

14/03/2022

The appellant has preferred this second appeal, assailing the

judgment and decree dated 28.05.2014 passed by Additional

District Judge No.1 Bayana, District Bharatpur in Civil Regular

Appeal No.05/2011 dismissing appeal and affirming the judgment

and decree dated 28.05.2011 passed by Civil Judge (SD) Bayana

in Civil Case No.01/2007 whereunder her civil suit challenging

registered sale-deed dated 22.01.2007 has been dismissed.

It appears from the record that the appellant-plaintiff

executed a registered sale-deed dated 22.01.2007 in relation to

her 3/7 share in land of khasra No.83, measuring 1 biga 9 biswa,

situated at Village-Bhawanpur, Tehsil Roopwas, Bharatpur for an

amount of Rs.35,000/- from respondent No.1-Smt. Nahani.

(2 of 3) [CSA-675/2017]

Whereafter, the appellant-plaintiff filed a civil suit, challenging the

registered sale-deed that same was got executed under the

misrepresentation of sanctioning of some loan. It was contended

by her that she has not received any sale consideration nor

delivered possession nor executed any sale-deed, therefore the

sale-deed be cancelled and declared as null and void.

The trial court recorded evidence of both parties and on

appreciation of evidence concluded that the plaintiff herself has

admitted that she appeared before the Sub Registrar in entire

proceedings of registration of the sale-deed. Her photographs are

affixed and her thumb impressions are also available on

documents of sale deed. Trial court has concluded that plaintiff has

not produced any cogent and convincing evidence to observe to

the contrary and held that the sale-deed was executed by her. The

trial court has also concluded that entire consideration was paid

and possession has also been delivered as mentioned in registered

sale deed. Findings recorded by the trial court have also been

affirmed by the First Appellate Court, that too after re-

appreciation of evidence brought on record.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, this Court

finds that findings recorded by the Court below are fact findings

and based on evidence on record.

At this stage of second appeal, re-appreciation of evidence is

not prima facie permissible to draw a different conclusion unless

and until findings under challenge are suffering from perversity, or

manifest illegality/infirmity.

Findings are based on oral documentary evidence, which do

not suffer from any mis-reading or misappreciation of evidence. It

is by now a settled law that involvement of substantial question of

(3 of 3) [CSA-675/2017]

law is required to entertain a second appeal. Since, this second

appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, this Court

is not inclined to entertain this Second appeal. The same is

accordingly dismissed.

Stay application and any other pending application, if any,

stand dismissed.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

Sunita/1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)