Rajasthan High Court
Arjun S/O Shri Prabhu Lal vs Shri Bhoop Singh S/O Shri Nathhi ... on 4 October, 2023
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023:RJ-JP:26484]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 135/2020
1. Arjun S/o Shri Prabhu Lal,, Resident Of Village Elau, Tehsil
Roopwas, District Bharatpur Presently Residing At Tilak
Nagar, Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
2. Bhimsen S/o Shri Prabhu Lal, Resident Of Village Elau,
Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur Presently Residing At
Tilak Nagar, Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
3. Vishwendra S/o Shri Prabhu Lal, Resident Of Village Elau,
Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur Presently Residing At
Tilak Nagar, Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
4. Miss Manisha D/o Shri Prabhu Lal, (Being Minor)
Represented Through Her Father Shri Prabhu Lal S/o Shri
Hatila Ram, Resident Of Village Elau, Tehsil Roopwas,
District Bharatpur Presently Residing At Tilak Nagar,
Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
----Appellants-Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Shri Bhoop Singh S/o Shri Nathhi, Resident Of Village
Habibpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur
2. Smt. Manju W/o Late Shri Dansingh, Resident Of Village
Habibpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur
3. Miss Madhu D/o Late Shri Dansingh, (Being Minor)
Represented Through Her Mother Smt. Manju W/o Late
Shri Dansingh, Resident Of Village Habibpur, Tehsil And
District Bharatpur
4. Miss Preeti D/o Late Shri Dansingh, (Being Minor)
Represented Through Her Mother Smt. Manju W/o Late
Shri Dansingh, Resident Of Village Habibpur, Tehsil And
District Bharatpur
5. Bandi S/o Late Shri Dansingh, (Being Minor) Represented
Through Her Mother Smt. Manju W/o Late Shri Dansingh,
Resident Of Village Habibpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur
6. Miss Bulbul D/o Late Shri Dansingh, (Being Minor)
Represented Through Her Mother Smt. Manju W/o Late
Shri Dansingh, Resident Of Village Habibpur, Tehsil And
District Bharatpur
7. Chintoo S/o Late Shri Dansingh, (Being Minor)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:31:20 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:26484] (2 of 4) [CSA-135/2020]
Represented Through Her Mother Smt. Manju W/o Late
Shri Dansingh, Resident Of Village Habibpur, Tehsil And
District Bharatpur
Original respondents-defendants
8. Smt. Santa D/o Shri Natthi W/o Shri Murari, Resident Of
Village Habibpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur Presently
Residing At Nagla Pahalwan, Tehsil Roopwas, District
Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
----deleted respondent-Defendant
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
04/10/2023
This civil second appeal is preferred against the judgment
and decree dated 29.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge No.1, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) (for brevity "the
learned appellate Court") in Regular Civil Appeal No.114/2019
(CIS No.36/2015) whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the
judgment and decree dated 30.03.2015 passed by the learned
Additional Civil Judge No.1, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) (for short "the
learned trial Court") dismissing the Civil Case No.95/2013
(32/2011) filed by the appellants/plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to
as "the plaintiffs") for cancellation of release deed dated
28.07.2005, have been affirmed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit
for cancellation of the release deed dated 28.07.2005 executed by
their mother-Smt. Premvati, Auntie (Mausi)-Smt. Gulkandi &
Grandmother (Nani)-Santo of the subject agricultural land in
favour of the respondents-defendants (for short "the defendants"),
[2023:RJ-JP:26484] (3 of 4) [CSA-135/2020]
their brothers. Alleging that their mother, auntie and grandmother
never executed the aforesaid release deed and the same has been
forged and fabricated by the defendants, the decree as aforesaid
was prayed for.
The defendants in their joint written statement, denying the
averments made in the plaint, submitted that the subject release
deed was duly executed and registered by the executants with the
competent authority. Dismissal of the suit, therefore, was prayed
for.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial
Court framed five issues including relief. After recording evidence
of the respective parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit
vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.2015 which have been
affirmed and upheld by the learned appellate Court while
dismissing the civil first appeal preferred thereagainst by the
plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2019.
Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, the only
contention advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is
that the defendants did not establish the validity and genuineness
of the release deed in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity "the Act of 1872") by producing
attesting witnesses to it. He, therefore, prays that the civil second
appeal be allowed, the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2019 be
quashed and set aside and the suit be decreed.
Heard. Considered.
While dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs, the learned
trial Court has held that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to
establish that the subject release deed, which is the registered
[2023:RJ-JP:26484] (4 of 4) [CSA-135/2020]
deed, is forged and fabricated. It was noted that the plaintiff No.2-
Bhimsen as PW-1 has stated during his cross-examination that he
reckons the subject deed to be forged as neither his mother, nor
his uncle (mama) apprised him about it. It was also appreciated
that he has even feigned ignorance whether the subject release
deed was registered or not. The learned trial Court also took into
consideration that the plaintiff No.3-Vishwendra Singh as PW-2
has admitted during his cross-examination that he was present at
the time of execution of the release deed and as a matter of fact,
he has signed it. It was held that there is a presumption of
genuineness attached to a registered deed which could not be
rebutted by the plaintiffs. These findings have been affirmed by
the learned appellate Court re-appreciating the evidence on
record. The aforesaid concurrent findings of facts have not been
assailed before this Court by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
learned Courts did not err in dismissing the suit.
The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs qua
Section 68 of the Act of 1872, is wholly misconceived and does
not merit acceptance. The plaintiffs have alleged the subject
release deed to be forged and fabricated and it was for them to
have established it to be so in order to get success in the suit in
which they have miserably failed.
Since, this civil second appeal is deovid of any substantial
question of law, the same is dismissed.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/58
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
