Rajasthan High Court
Hanuman S/O Late Shri Deva vs Ramanand S/O Shri Dhannalal on 14 October, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.46/2020
Hanuman S/o Late Shri Deva, age about 63 years, R/o-Dedyoda
Chod, Tehsil-Bassi, District-Jaipur, at present R/o-Plot No.66A,
Krishna Colony, Ramgarh Mod, Jaipur (since deceased) through
legal heirs:-
1. Dinesh Sharma S/o late Shri Hanuman, age about-40 years,
2. Jitesh Sharma S/o late Shri Hanuman, age about 34 years,
3. Neha D/o late Shri Hanuman, age about 33 years,
4. Smt. Pushpa W/o late Shri Hanuman, age about 58 years,
All are R/o Dedyoda Chod, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, at present
R/o Plot No.B-224, Govind nagar east, Amer Road, Jaipur.
----Appellant/plaintiff
Versus
1. Ramanand S/o Shri Dhannalal, R/o Dedyoda Chod, Tehsil
Bassi, District Jaipur (Since Deceased)
1/1 Kailash S/o Late Ramanand
1/2 Rameshwar S/o Late Shri Ramanand
1/3 Kana S/o Late Shri Ramanand
1/4 Manbhar W/o Late Shri Ramanand .......Deleted
1/5 Muli Devi D/o Late Shri Ramanand
1/6 Prem Devi D/o Late Shri Ramanand
1/7 Suja D/o Late Shri Ramanand
1/8 Gita D/o Late Shri Ramanand
1/9 Bina D/o Late Shri Ramanand
All are R/o Village Dedyoda Chod, Tehsil Bassi, District
Jaipur.
2. Tehsildar, Village Dedyoda Chod, Tehsil Bassi, Office Bassi
District Jaipur
3. Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office Bassi, Tehsil Bassi,
District Jaipur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Yadav
For Respondent(s) :
(2 of 4) [CSA-46/2020]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
14/10/2022
1. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this second appeal under
Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated
07.09.2019 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge
No.16, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur in Civil Appeal No.20/2018
affirming the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2017 passed by
the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.24, Bassi,
Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No.8/2006 whereby and
whereunder the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff for declaration and
permanent injunction has been dismissed.
2. Heard counsel for appellant and perused the impugned
judgments.
3. It appears that appellant-plaintiff through his power of
attorney holder instituted the present civil suit in the year 2006
seeking declaration of the registered sale deed dated 11.08.1965
as null and void on the ground that the sale deed was executed by
her mother (natural guardian) while he was minor at the age of 9
years. Plaintiff has taken resort to the provisions of Section 8 of
the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 to contend that the
guardian could not have sold the property of minor without
seeking prior permission of the court.
4. Both courts have considered the aforesaid aspect of
challenge made by plaintiff to the sale deed dated 11.08.1965 and
has observed that even if the case of plaintiff is taken as true, the
plaintiff attained majority in the year 1974-75. As per Section 60
of the Limitation Act, 1963, the plaintiff could have claimed to set
(3 of 4) [CSA-46/2020]
aside the sale deed dated 11.08.1965 within a period of three
years from the date of attaining the majority.
5. It has been observed that plaintiff himself executed one
another sale deed in respect of his adjoining land to the land in
question, on 11.09.1978. It has been observed that at that point
of time, at least the plaintiff could have come to know about the
execution of sale deed dated 11.08.1965 by his mother in respect
of his land but at that point of time also, the plaintiff never
assailed the sale deed dated 11.08.1965. The present suit filed in
the year 2006 it means after more than nearabout 40 years was
held as hopelessly barred by limitation and accordingly the
plaintiff's suit has been dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for appellant could not point out any
illegality and perversity in the fact findings recorded by two courts
below which are based on the material on record. The proposition
of law as to limitation to challenge the sale deed by minor, as
envisaged under Section 60 of the Limitation Act is not in dispute.
Therefore, this Court is unequivocally of opinion that two courts
below have not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in
dismissing the plaintiff's suit.
7. Fact findings recorded by both courts below do not give rise
to any substantial question of law as findings are neither perverse
nor suffer from misreading/non-reading of evidence nor based on
any inadmissible piece of evidence.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan
v. Shiv Dayal [(2019) 8 SCC 637], has held that a concurrent
finding of the fact is binding, unless it is pointed out that it was
recorded de hors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or
(4 of 4) [CSA-46/2020]
based on misreading of the material on records and documents.
The Court held as under:
"When any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in
second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out
that it is bad in law because it was recorded dehors
the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was
based on misreading of material documentary
evidence or it was recorded against any provision of
law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge
acting judicially could reasonably have reached. (see
observation made by learned Judge Vivian Bose,J. as
his Lordship then was a Judge of the Nagpur High
Court in Rajeshwar Vishwanath Mamidwar & Ors. vs.
Dashrath Narayan Chilwelkar & Ors.,[AIR 1943 Nag
117 para 43]"
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case C. Doddanarayan
Reddy vs. C. Jayarama Reddy [(2020) 4 SCC 659], has
observed that where two courts have reached a finding which is
not based upon any misreading of material documents, nor is
recorded against provisions of law and neither can it be said that
any Judge acting judiciously and reasonably could not have
reached such a finding, then High Court is not required to interfere
with such fact findings while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 100 CPC.
10. As a result, the second appeal is bereft of merits being no
involvement of any substantial question of law and accordingly,
the same is hereby dismissed. Record be sent back.
11. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SAURABH/8
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
