Friday, 15, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Lrs Of Dharma vs Roshani (2024:Rj-Jd:10694)
2024 Latest Caselaw 2155 Raj

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2155 Raj
Judgement Date : 4 March, 2024

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Lrs Of Dharma vs Roshani (2024:Rj-Jd:10694) on 4 March, 2024

Author: Birendra Kumar

Bench: Birendra Kumar

[2024:RJ-JD:10694]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 120/2022

1.       Lrs Of Dharma, S/o Dalu Ram
2.       Jai Narayan S/o Late Dharma Ram, Aged About 47 Years,
         R/o Fefana Tehsil Nohar Distt. Hanumangarh.
3.       Hanuman S/o Late Dharma Ram, Aged About 33 Years,
         R/o Fefana Tehsil Nohar Distt. Hanumangarh.
4.       Nathi W/o Late Dharma Ram, Aged About 84 Years, R/o
         Fefana Tehsil Nohar Distt. Hanumangarh.
5.       Seema D/o Late Dharma Ram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o
         Fefana Tehsil Nohar Distt. Hanumangarh.
6.       Vimla D/o Late Dharma Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o
         Fefana Tehsil Nohar Distt. Hanumangarh.
                                                                   ----Appellants
                                    Versus
1.       Roshani W/o Mangtu Ram, R/o Fefana Tehsil Nohar Distt.
         Hanumangarh.
2.       Vikram S/o Mangtu Ram, R/o Fefana Tehsil Nohar Distt.
         Hanumangarh.
3.       Manisha D/o Mangtu Ram, Being Minor Through Natural
         Guardian Mother Roshani W/o Mangtu Ram, R/o Fefana
         Tehsil Nohar Distt. Hanumangarh.
4.       Pati W/o Raja Ram, R/o Fefana Tehsil Nohar Distt.
         Hanumangarh.
5.       Vinod S/o Raja Ram, R/o Fefana Tehsil Nohar Distt.
         Hanumangarh.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Ganga Ram.
For Respondent(s)         :



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

04/03/2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

[2024:RJ-JD:10694] (2 of 3) [CSA-120/2022]

2. The background of this second appeal is that the

plaintiffs/respondents brought Civil Original Suit No. 287/2006

against Dharma Ram & Ors. for permanent injunction, restraining

them from transferring the suit property marked with red colour in

the map attached with the plaint. Further prayer was for

restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from

the suit property. The defendants appeared in the suit and raised

defence that infact Raja Ram, the father of the plaintiff Mangtu

Ram had executed an agreement to sale dated 31.5.1987 in

favour of Chunni Ram, the full brother of Raja Ram, whereby, Raja

Ram transferred the suit property to Chunni Ram on receipt of

consideration money of Rs.3000/-. Chunni Ram died leaving

behind a daughter and the daughter exchanged the said property

with the petitioners and thereafter, the petitioners are in

possession. Learned trial Judge was of the view that the

agreement to sale was not a registered document, therefore, no

title passed to the transferee of Raja Ram and on consideration of

other issues as well, decreed the suit by the impugned judgment

and decree dated 31.7.2015. The decree of the aforesaid suit was

challenged in Civil Regular Appeal No. 29/2015 and the appeal

was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 7.9.2021.

Hence, this second appeal.

3. Following questions have been raised as substantial

questions of law involved in this appeal:-

"(I) Whether the suit for permanent injunction is maintainable without establishing the possession? (II) Whether question of the registration of agreement to sale can be determined in the suit of permanent injunction?

[2024:RJ-JD:10694] (3 of 3) [CSA-120/2022]

(III) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled permanent injunction over the plot of possession and title of the defendants?

(IV) The appellants crave leave to add and supplement more substantial question of law at the time of arguments."

4. The question number 1 aforesaid is a mixed question of law

and fact and would require re-appreciation of evidence to see the

correctness of finding on possession of the parties litigating, which

is not permissible at this stage. Similarly, question no. 2 cannot be

agitated in this second appeal as the law is well settled that no

title passes to a property which has value of more than Rs.100

unless, a registered sale deed is executed as required under

Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Likewise, question no.

3 above would require re-appreciation of evidence. No other

questions have been raised having substance of substantial

questions of law. Therefore, this second appeal stands dismissed

as devoid of any merit.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J 41-sumer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter