Choth Mal Son Of Late Shari Bhanwar ... vs Naraian Son Of Late Shari Bhanwar ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6044 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:29504]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 202/2021

Choth Mal Son Of Late Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 63 Years,
R/o Ugariyawas, Tehsil Mojamabad, Distt. Jaipur, (Rajasthan.)
                                                            ----Appellant/Plaintiff
                                     Versus
1.       Naraian Son Of Late Shri Bhanwar Lal,
2.       Nanu Ram Son Of Late Shri Bhanwar Lal,
3.       Lala Ram Son Of Late Shri Bhanwar Lal,
4.       Kanhaya Lal Son Of Late Shri Bhanwr Lal,
5.       Smt Dhapum Devi W/o Late Shri Bhanwar Lal,
         All R/o Ugariyawas, Tehsil Mojamabad, Distt. Jaipur,
         (Rajasthan.)
                                                 ----Respondents/Defendants

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ramesh Chandra Kumawat 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 13.08.2021 passed by the learned Additional

District Judge Dudu, District Jaipur (for brevity, "the learned

Appellate Court") in Civil Appeal No.128/2018 (13/2016)(NCV

No.128/2018) whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the judgment

and decree dated 30.04.2016 passed by the learned Senior Civil

Judge, Dudu, District Jaipur (for brevity, "the learned trial Court")

dismissing the Civil Suit No.135/2015 (96/2007) filed by the

appellant-plaintiff (for brevity, "the plaintiff") for permanent

injunction, have been affirmed.

[2023:RJ-JP:29504] (2 of 4) [CSA-202/2021]

The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for

permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants (for

brevity "the defendants") stating therein that the suit property

comprising of a shop was the ancestral property of the parties;

but, the defendants no.1 & 2 wanted to grab the subject shop and

dispossess him from the joint possession. Alleging that the

defendants no.1 & 2 have got executed a sale deed of the suit

shop in their favour and wanted to dispossess him, the decree for

permanent injunction was prayed to the effect that the defendants

no.1 & 2 be restrained from alienating the property in any manner.

The defendants no.1 & 2 in their joint written statement

submitted that they have purchased the suit shop through a

registered sale deed dated 24.08.2002 from their self-acquired

property and were under its ownership and possession since then.

It was further stated that without seeking cancellation of the sale

deed, the suit was not maintainable.

The defendants no.3 to 5 in their joint written statement,

admitted the averments made in the plaint.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial

Court framed three issues including relief. After recording evidence

of the respective parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit

vide its judgment and decree dated 30.04.2016. The civil first

appeal preferred thereagainst by the plaintiff has also been

dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and

decree dated 13.08.2021.

Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, the only

contention advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that

the findings of the learned Courts are against the evidence on

[2023:RJ-JP:29504] (3 of 4) [CSA-202/2021]

record. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be

allowed, the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2021 be quashed

and set aside and the suit be decreed.

Heard. Considered.

While dismissing the suit, learned trial Court has held that

the plaintiff could not establish that the suit shop is the ancestral

property of the parties; rather, relying upon Ex-2, a copy of the

plaint filed by Late Shri Bhanwar Lal, father of the parties, against

the defendants no.1 & 2, it was held that it was specifically stated

therein that the subject property was purchased by the plaintiff

out of his self-acquired property meaning thereby that it was not

the ancestral property as claimed. Taking note of the registered

sale deed (Ex-4/Ex-A-1) through which the defendants no.1 & 2

have purchased the subject property for a sale consideration of

Rs.40,000/- from Shri Bhanwar Lal, their father, it was held that

the defendants no.1 & 2 were its registered owner and were in its

possession. The learned trial Court has also held that the plaintiff

could not establish his allegation that the aforesaid registered sale

deed was obtained fraudulently. These findings have been affirmed

by the learned Appellate Court re-appreciating the evidence on

record. In view of the aforesaid findings, in the considered opinion

of this court, the learned Courts did not err in dismissing the suit

filed by the plaintiff. Even otherwise also, the learned counsel for

the plaintiff could not satisfy this Court as to how without seeking

cancellation of the registered sale deed executed in favour of the

defendants no.1 & 2 by its erstwhile owner, the suit simplicitor for

injunction is maintainable.

[2023:RJ-JP:29504] (4 of 4) [CSA-202/2021]

Since, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has failed to

demonstrate that the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the

learned Courts suffer from any illegality, infirmity, perversity or

jurisdictional error, this civil second appeal is dismissed being

devoid of any substantial question of law.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Sudha/18

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)