Rajasthan High Court
Rampal vs Rameshwar And Ors on 1 February, 2023
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2023/RJJP/001045]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 700/2005
Rampal S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Meena, R/o Village
Bishansinghpura, Tehsil, Amer, District Jaipur
----Plaintiff-Appellant
Versus
Rameshwar S/o Pura Bangr Brahmin R/o Village
Bishansinghpura, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Deceased through
L.R.
(1/1) Jhunthi widow of Rameshwar
(1/2) Rooponaran S/o Rameshwar R/o Bishansinghjpura, Tehsil
Amer, District Jaipur
2. Ramchander S/o Jaggu
3. Ram Niwas S/o Jaggu
4. Hari S/o Jaggu
R/o Village Bishansinghpura, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur
5. Ram Kishan (deceased) through his L.R.
5/1 Ram Narain
5/2 Sharwn
5/3 Brijmohan
R/o Village Bishansinghpura, Tehsil Amer, (Jaipur)
6. Bansi S/o Sua
7. Lala S/o Sua
8. Nathu S/o Shri Goriya @ Goruram (deceased) through his L.R.
8/1 Smt. Lakhma Widow of Late Nathu
8/2. Mukesh S/o Late Nathu
R/o Village Bishansinghpura, Tehsil Amer (Jaipur)
8/3 Smt. Lali D/o Late Nathu, W/o Sita Ram
8/4 Smt. Sita D/o Late Nathu, W/o Hanuman
9. Jagdish (deceased) through his L.R.
9/1 Smt. Birdi Widow of Jagdish
9/2 Hanuman S/o Jagdish
9/3. Gopal S/o Jagdish
9/4 Laxman S/o Jagdish
R/o Village Bishansinghpura, Tehsil Amer (Jaipur)
10. Ram Sahai S/o Sua R/o Village Bishansinghpura, Tehsil Amer,
District Jaipur.
11. Ganesh S/o Bhura R/o Village Bishansinghpura Tehsil, Amer
District Jaipur (deceased) through L.R.
11/1 Smt. Champa Devi Widow of Ganesh
(Downloaded on 04/02/2023 at 12:10:39 AM)
[2023/RJJP/001045] (2 of 4) [CFA-700/2005]
11/2 Phoolchand S/o Ganesh
11/3 Rampal S/o Ganesh
R/o Village Bishansinghpura Tehsil, Amer District Jaipur.
12. Sukha S/o Gopiram
13. Heera Lal S/o Gopiram
Mansingh Tehsil Phulera Sambhar, Jaipur
14. Smt. Sunder Devi W/o Shiv Shaya Sharma R/o Village
Hardatpura, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur
---Defendant-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S. L. Songara, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. V. Tholia, Adv.
Mr. Shantanu Gupta, Adv. on behalf of
Mr. Bipin Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Anoop Agarwal, Adv. with
Mr. Rohit Kumar Tuteja, Adv. for
respondent Nos.8/1 to 8/4 & 9/1 &
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
ORDER RESERVED ON :: 31.01.2023
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 01.02.2023
This appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for
short 'the plaintiff') against the order dated 07.02.2001 passed by
the Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur District Jaipur (for short
'the trial court') in Civil Suit No.25/2000, whereby the application
filed by the respondents defendants (for short 'the defendants)
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and the suit filed by
the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract has been
dismissed.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the
plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance, cancellation of
[2023/RJJP/001045] (3 of 4) [CFA-700/2005]
sale deed, recovery of possession and permanent injunction
against the defendant Nos.1 to 10 in the year 1998 in which
defendants had filed reply and submitted that part of the disputed
land was sold to respondent Nos.13 to 16 by different sale deed.
So, on 30.05.2000 plaintiff withdrew the suit with liberty to file
fresh suit. After that, the plaintiff filed the present suit in which he
clearly stated that Nanu grand-father of the plaintiff had
purchased the land situated in village Bishansinghpura, Tehsil
Amer in samwat year 2016 in the amount of Rs.400/-. The said
land was in the name of Jaikishan, Pitha and Goria. After that,
Bhura, Suva and Kanhna had taken Rs.540/- in samwat year 2018
as registry charges of the said land. After purchasing the land,
Nanu was having possession over the land in question. Nanu had
no issue. Nanu died on 26.12.1996. Before his death, he had
executed a Will in the year 1990 in favour of the plaintiff and gave
the land to the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further
submits that the trial court had not considered the averments of
the plaint in which plaintiff clearly stated that the respondents
denied to execute sale deed on 24.03.1998. So, present suit is
within the limitation. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits
that the trial court wrongly considered the defence of the
defendants by allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the question
of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. So, order of the
trial court be set-aside.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance
upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Ramesh B. Desai & Others Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta &
[2023/RJJP/001045] (4 of 4) [CFA-700/2005]
Others in Civil Appeal No.4766/2001 decided on 11.07.2006
and in the case of Bhau Ram Vs. Janak Singh & Ors. in Civil
Appeal No.5343/2012 decided on 20.07.2012.
Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and
submits that as per the averment of the plaint, so-called
agreement was executed in the year 1959 and suit was filed in the
year i.e. 2000 after the lapse of more than 40 years. Learned
counsel for the defendants also submitted that as per the
averment, dispute arose between in the year 1986-1987. Present
suit was not filed within 3 years. So, learned trial Court rightly
dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. So, appeal be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the
respondents.
It is an admitted position that the plaintiff filed the suit
for specific performance of the contract which was executed in the
year 1959(Samwat 2016). It is also an admitted position that the
dispute arose between the parties in the year 1986-1987. The
plaintiff had filed the present suit in the year 2000 i.e. after the
lapse of 40 years for specific performance of the agreement. So,
in my considered opinion, the trial court rightly allowed the
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the suit filed
by the plaintiff being barred by limitation. So, present appeal is
devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed
accordingly.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/83
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
