Rajasthan High Court
Smt Durgesh Kanwar vs Udai Singh And Ors ... on 11 September, 2023
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023:RJ-JP:21730]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 166/2018
Smt. Durgesh Kanwar D/o Late Bhanwar Singh, W/o Dalpat
Singh, R/o Village Itawa Bhopji, Tehsil Chomu, Distt. Jaipur At
Present R/o Behind Brn College, Tausar Road, Jat Colony, Infront
Of Saraswati Beej Bhandar Godown, Nagaur, Distt. Nagaur Raj.
----Plaintiff-Appellant
Versus
1. Udai Singh S/o Late Dashrath Singh
2. Ajay Singh S/o Late Dashrath Singh
Both R/o Village Itawa Bhopji, Tehsil Chomu, Distt. Jaipur.
3. Dy. Registrar Mahodaya, Chomu, Tehsil Chomu, Distt.
Jaipur.
4. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Chomu Distt.
Jaipur. Deleted Name Of Defendant No. 5 To 12.
----Defendant-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Aayushi Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Rajawat for
Mr. Chain Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
11/09/2023
This civil second appeal is preferred against the judgment
and decree dated 06.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge No.20, Jaipur Metropolitan, Heaquarter Chomu (for
brevity, "the learned Appellate Court") in Civil Regular Appeal
No.2/2017 whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the
appellant-plaintiff (for brevity, "the plaintiff"), the judgment and
decree dated 17.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Civil
Judge No.25, Chomu, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for brevity, "the
[2023:RJ-JP:21730] (2 of 4) [CSA-166/2018]
learned trial Court") dismissing the Civil Suit No.198/2008 for
declaration and permanent injunction, have been upheld.
The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for
declaration and permanent injunction against the
respondents/defendants (for brevity, "the defendant") stating
therein that she and the defendants no.1, 2, 5 to 12 are family
members. It was averred that she has 1/9th share in the subject
agricultural land, the self acquired property of her father Late
Bhanwar Singh. It was alleged that the defendants no. 1 & 2, who
are her nephews, have fraudulently got executed a relinquishment
deed dated 22.10.2008 regarding her entire 1/9 th share in their
favour; whereas, she intended to relinquish only 1/36 th share in
their favour and 3/36th share in favour of the defendants no. 6 to
8. Alleging that the aforesaid release deed was null and void to
the extent of her 3/36th share in the subject property, the decree
as aforesaid was prayed for.
The defendants no. 1, 2 & 12 in their joint written statement,
denied the averements made in the plaint.
On the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned trial
Court framed four issues including relief. After recording evidence
of the respective parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit
vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.2017 and the civil first
appeal preferred thereagainst by the plaintiff has also been
dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and
decree dated 06.01.2018.
Assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated
06.01.2018, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff submits that
the findings of the learned Courts are against the preponderance
[2023:RJ-JP:21730] (3 of 4) [CSA-166/2018]
of probabilities in her favour. He submits that the learned Courts
did not appreciate that she was able to establish from cogent
evidence that the defendants no.1 & 2 fraudulently obtained
release deed of her entire share in the subject property in their
favour; whereas, she intended to release only 1/36 th share in their
favour. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be
allowed, the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2018 be quashed
and set aside and the suit filed by her be decreed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, supporting
the findings recorded by the learned Courts, would submit that
since the civil second appeal does not involve any substantial
question of law, it deserves to be dismissed.
Heard. Considered.
While dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff, the learned
trial Court has held that the plaintiff could not establish that the
defendants no. 1 & 2 compelled her to execute the registered
release deed dated 22.10.2008 against her wishes inasmuch as
she has admitted that she has come to Chomu, where the subject
deed was executed, from Nagaur through train and four wheeler;
but, she did not raise any hue and cry at any point of time.
Critically examining her cross-examination and that of the
attesting witnesses to the relinquishment deed (Ex-1), i.e., S/Shri
Surendra Singh (DW-3) & Laxman Singh (DW-4), it has been held
that there was no material on record to establish that the plaintiff
had executed the subject release deed in favour of the defendants
no.1 & 2 against her wishes or it was got executed by them
fraudulently. The aforesaid findings have been affirmed by the
learned Appellate Court reappreciating the evidence on record. In
[2023:RJ-JP:21730] (4 of 4) [CSA-166/2018]
absence of any evidence that the defendants no. 1 & 2 compelled
the plaintiff to execute the registered release deed of her share in
the subject property against her wishes or it was done so
fraudulently, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned
Courts did not err in dismissing the suit filed by her.
Since, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the
learned Appellate Court as also by the learned trial Court have not
been demonstrated by the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff
to be suffering from any illegality, infirmity, perversity or
jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference of this Court
under Section 100 CPC, the civil second appeal is dismissed being
devoid of any substantial question of law.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/173
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
