Rajasthan High Court
Hussain S/O Naseeb vs Shri Bhanwar Lal S/O Late Shri Ram ... on 16 October, 2023
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023:RJ-JP:29542]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 563/2019
1. Hussain S/o Naseeb, Aged About 40 Years,
2. Gafur S/o Naseeb, Aged About 35 Years,
Both are Resident Of Village Kanti Ka Talab, Tehsil
Nasirabad, District Ajmer
----Appellants/Plaintiffs
Versus
1. Shri Bhanwar Lal S/o Late Shri Ram Singh,
2. Shri Panna S/o Late Shri Ram Singh,
3. Shri Pappu S/o Ram Singh,
Resident Of Near Nandala Jawahar Navodya School,
Nasirabad, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer
4. Sita W/o Alam D/o Late Sh. Ramsingh,
5. Smt. Bhanwari @ Bhurki D/o Late Shri Ram Singh W/o
Sajan S/o Shri Ajman, Resident Of Bithur, Tehsil
Nasirabad, District Ajmer
6. Smt. Meera D/o Late Shri Ramsingh W/o Shri Lal S/o
Peeru, Resident Of Bithur, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer
7. Smt. Pappudi @ Panchi W/o Sakrudeen D/o Ajmal
Through Bhanwar S/o Chita, Resident Of Near Nandala
Jahwar Navodya School, Nasirabad, Tehsil Nasirabad,
District Ajmer
8. Smt. Choti W/o Kalu D/o Ramsingh, Resident Of Village
Panchmats, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer
9. Smt. Badami W/o Late Shri Nasiba, (Deceased Dated
02.12.2014)
10. Ratan S/o Late Naseeba,
11. Shanti D/o Late Naseeba,
12. Rama S/o Late Naseeba,
13. Prem D/o Late Naseeba,
14. Kali D/o Late Naseeba,
15. Madina D/o Late Naseeba,
16. Muuna S/o Late Naseeba,
17. Manni D/o Late Naseeba, Aged About 26 Years,
All are Resident Of Village Rajosi, Tehsil Nasirabad,
District Ajmer
18. Govt. Of Rajasthan, Through Its Tehsildar, Office Tehsil
Nasirabad, District Ajmer
19. Sub-Registrar Officer, Tehsil Office, Nasirabad, Ajmer
-----------Defendants/Respondents
20. Shri Naseeb S/o Dhula, (Deceased On 26.11.2018)
----Proforma/Respondent
[2023:RJ-JP:29542] (2 of 4) [CSA-563/2019]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Gurjar for
Mr. Vijay Choudhary
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
16/10/2023
This civil second appeal is preferred against the judgment
and decree dated 24.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Camp Nasirabad, Ajmer (for brevity "the learned
appellate Court") in Civil Appeal No.21/2008 (64/2019) (CIS
No.1067/2014) whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the
judgment and decree dated 30.05.2013 passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nasirabad, District Ajmer (for short
"the learned trial Court") dismissing the Civil Suit No.31/2010 filed
by the appellants No.1 & 2 & the deceased-respondent
No.20/plaintiffs (for brevity "the plaintiffs") for cancellation of sale
deed and permanent injunction, have been upheld.
The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit
for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction stating
therein that the parties are family members. Alleging that share of
the plaintiffs in the subject ancestral agricultural land was sold by
Smt. Naseeba, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants No.9
to 17 in favour of Shri Ram Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of
the defendants No.1 to 8 through the registered sale deed dated
06.11.1979 illegally and without authority, the decree as aforesaid
was prayed for.
The defendants No.1 to 8 in their joint written statement,
denying the averments made in the plaint, submitted that the
plaintiffs did not have any right in the subject property and their
[2023:RJ-JP:29542] (3 of 4) [CSA-563/2019]
father Shri Ram Singh had purchased the subject property from its
erstwhile Khatedar-Smt. Naseeba through a registered sale deed.
Dismissal of the suit, therefore, was prayed for.
The defendants No.9 to 17 in their joint written statement,
submitted that Smt. Naseeba has sold her one-half share in the
subject agricultural land to Shri Ram Singh.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial
Court framed six issues including relief. After recording evidence
of the respective parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit
vide judgment & decree dated 30.05.2013. The civil first appeal
preferred thereagainst by the plaintiffs has also been dismissed by
the learned appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated
24.07.2019.
Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, the only
contention advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs is that
the learned Courts erred in dismissing the suit holding it to be
barred by limitation on the premise that it was filed beyond the
period of three years as the plaintiffs had come to know of the
registered sale deed dated 06.11.1979 on 21.07.2006 from the
written statement filed by the defendants in Revenue Suit
No.22/2006 whereas, the limitation would start running from the
date of dismissal of the aforesaid revenue suit in the year 2009.
He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be allowed, the
judgement and decree dated 24.07.2019 be quashed and set
aside and the suit be decreed.
Heard. Considered.
While deciding the issues no.3 & 5 against the plaintiffs and
dismissing the suit being hit by law of limitation, the learned trial
[2023:RJ-JP:29542] (4 of 4) [CSA-563/2019]
Court has held that from the written statement dated 21.07.2006
filed by the defendants in Revenue Suit No.22/2006 in the Court
of Sub-Divisional Officer, Nasirabad, the plaintiffs had come to
know of the sale deed dated 06.11.1979; whereas, the suit was
filed beyond the period of three years from that date as also
admitted by the plaintiff no.1-Shri Naseeb as PW-1. Article 59 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity, "the Act of 1963") provides
as under:-
"Article-59 To cancel or set Three When the facts entitling the plaintiff
aside an years to have the instrument or decree
instrument or cancelled or set aside or the contract
decree or for the rescinded first become known to
rescission of a him."
contract.
Thus, the limitation of three years starts from the date of
knowledge of the plaintiff about the impugned sale deed.
Indisputably, in the present case, the plaintiffs have come to know
of the sale deed dated 06.11.1979 on 21.07.2006, hence, the suit
filed as late as in the year 2010 was definitely hit by Article 59 of
the Act of 1963 and the learned Courts did not err in dismissing
the suit as barred by the law of limitation.
Contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs as to
starting of limitation from the date of dismissal of the revenue suit
is wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected in view of the
provisions contained under Article 59 of the Act of 1963.
Resultantly, this civil second appeal is dismissed being devoid
of merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/26
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
