Smt. Sunita Yadav W/O Ghanshyam ... vs Gajraj Singh S/O Banshi Ram
2022 Latest Caselaw 6346 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 571/2022

Smt. Sunita Yadav W/o Ghanshyam Yadav
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
Gajraj Singh S/o Banshi Ram & ors.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Atul Sharma
For Respondent(s)        :



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                    Order

23/09/2022

Counsel for appellant has pointed out that respondent No.4-

defendant-Jitendra has already sold out his 1/4th share of

agricultural lands in question to appellant Smt. Sunita Yadav

through registered sale deed dated 08.12.2021 against sale

consideration of Rs.16,05,000/-. The appellant is in possession as

khatedar owner of purchased lands. Thereafter, respondents No.1

to 3-plaintiffs instituted one civil suit for specific performance

against respondent No.4-Jitendra, relying upon one agreement

dated 15.10.2019 and in that civil suit, both parties have obtained

a decree for specific performance by way of compromise dated

12.03.2022.

Counsel for appellant submits that the suit for specific

performance is collusive and behind the back of appellant, a

collusive decree through compromise has been obtained, which is

detrimental to rights of appellant as far as property in question is

concerned.

(2 of 2) [CFA-571/2022]

Appellant has moved an application seeking leave to appeal

and has also filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act, seeking condonation of delay of 95 days. Counsel for

appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of My Palace

Mutually Aided Co-operative Society Vs. B. Mahesh & Ors.

[(2022) LiveLaw (SC) 698].

Having considered aforesaid facts and reasons for delay,

mentioned in the application, supported with affidavit, the delay in

filing the first appeal is condoned.

Accordingly, application under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act, stands allowed. Appellant is granted leave to file this first

appeal, subject to the contest to the application by respondents.

Heard.

Issue notice to respondents for appeal as also of stay

application along with the application for leave to appeal.

Record of the trial court be summoned.

In the meanwhile, the execution of the impugned decree

dated 12.03.2022 passed on the basis of compromise, shall

remain stayed and both parties shall maintain status quo as to

alienation and possession of property in question.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

SACHIN/26

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)