Gatudi vs Bhanwar Lal (2023:Rj-Jd:37794)
2023 Latest Caselaw 9097 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:37794]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 24/2021

Gatudi W/o Mangilal, Aged About 78 Years, Nenas, Tehsil Degana, Dis. Nagaur.

----Appellant Versus

1. Bhanwar Lal S/o Ogadram, Aged About 53 Years, Khudi Kallan, Tehsil Degana, Dis. Nagaur.

2. Shankar Lal S/o Chhogaram, Nenas, Tehsil Degana, Dis.

Nagaur.

3. Mani Ram S/o Jairam, Nenas, Tehsil Degana, Dis. Nagaur.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)           :    Mr. Kan Singh Oad



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                 Judgment

04/11/2023

1. The present second appeal has been preferred against the

judgment and decree dated 01.02.2021 passed by the District

Judge, Merta in Civil Appeal Decree No.14/2019 (CIS No.14/2019)

whereby the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2019 passed by

the Senior Civil Judge, Degana in Civil Original Suit No.3/2017,

has been affirmed.

Learned Trial Court, vide the impugned judgment and decree

dated 01.06.2019, proceeded on to dismiss the suit as preferred

by the plaintiff for cancellation of the sale deed dated 05.02.1992

and for declaratory injunction.

2. The case of the plaintiff was that defendant No.1, who

happens to be her son-in-law, got executed the sale deed in his

[2023:RJ-JD:37794] (2 of 2) [CSA-24/2021]

favour from her late husband fraudulently whereas the said land

was the joint family property and not even partitioned.

3. Both the Courts below while deciding Issue No.1 found that

the plaintiff, in her cross-examination, specifically admitted that

the land was purchased by her son-in-law Bhanwar Lal from her

husband and after the said purchase he continued to be in

possession and is cultivating the same. She further admitted that

after the said purchase, defendant No.1 sold out 5 bighas out of

the said land to defendant No.3 Mani Ram. In view of the specific

admissions of the plaintiff herself, the Courts below decided Issue

No.1 against the plaintiff.

4. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the said

factual and concurrent findings of the Courts below which are

based on specific admissions of the plaintiff herself.

5. No substantial question of law arise in the present appeal

and the same is hereby dismissed.

6. The stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also

stand dismissed.

(REKHA BORANA),J 3-Vij/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)