Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Laxmi Bai vs Ram Kumar (2025:Rj-Jd:10483) on 21 February, 2025
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2025:RJ-JD:10483]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 99/2021
1. Laxmi Bai W/o Surjan Singh, Aged About 63 Years,
Dullapur Kerri, Tehsil And District Sriganganagar
2. Balwant Singh S/o Surjan Singh, Aged About 38 Years,
Dullapur Kerri, Tehsil And District Sriganganagar
3. Kalwant Singh S/o Surjan Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
Dullapur Kerri, Tehsil And District Sriganganagar
----Appellants
Versus
1. Ram Kumar S/o Sriram, Village Jodkiyan, Tehsil
Padampur, District Sriganganagar
2. Bhoop Ram S/o Sriram, Village Jodkiyan, Tehsil
Padampur, District Sriganganagar
3. Gopal S/o Sriram, Village Jodkiyan, Tehsil Padampur,
District Sriganganagar
4. Sultan Ram S/o Sriram, Village Jodkiyan, Tehsil
Padampur, District Sriganganagar
5. Bhagwanti D/o Sriram, Village Jodkiyan, Tehsil Padampur,
District Sriganganagar
6. Mohini Devi D/o Sriram, Village Jodkiyan, Tehsil
Padampur, District Sriganganagar
7. Jangir Singh S/o Hajoor Singh, Village Dulapur Kerri,
Tehsil And District Sriganganagar
8. Fauja Singh S/o Hajoor Singh, Village Dulapur Kerri,
Tehsil And District Sriganganagar
9. State Of Rajasthan-State, The Collector, Sriganganagar
10. Sub Registrar, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Himmat Jagga
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
21/02/2025
[2025:RJ-JD:10483] (2 of 3) [CSA-99/2021]
1. A suit for specific performance of contract brought by the
plaintiffs-respondents was decreed by judgment and decree dated
24.07.2019 passed in Civil Original Suit No.17/2013. The decree
was challenged in regular Civil Appeal No.13/2019, which was also
dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Suratgarh by
judgment and decree dated 06.03.2021.
2. Following questions have been stated as substantial
questions of law to be decided in this second appeal:-
"(a) Whether the respondents plaintiffs had proved
their readiness and willingness to perform their part
of the contract?
(b) Whether the so called agreement to sell dated
21.06.1984 executed by late Shri Hajoor Singh in
favour of the plaintiffs has been brought about by
practice of fraud? If so, its effect?
(c) Whether the learned lower appellate court has
adopted a wrong approach towards the case while
deciding the question of limitation?
(d) Whether the suit of the respondents plaintiffs for
specific performance of sale agreement dated
21.06.1984 was barred by limitation?
(e) Any other substantial question of law which is
found just and proper to be framed, may kindly be
ordered to be framed."
3. Evidently, none of the questions are substantial questions of
law, rather, are mixed questions of law and fact, which cannot be
gone into in exercise of second appellate court's power.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the suit was
hopelessly barred by limitation and this fact has not been
considered by both the courts below, therefore, the impugned
judgment suffers from error of record.
5. No doubt in the agreement, the date for performance of
contract was fixed as 21.06.1984. However, the time was
extended till 20.06.1986 for the reason that the vendor was to
[2025:RJ-JD:10483] (3 of 3) [CSA-99/2021]
produce Jamabandi in his name in respect of the property under
agreement and he had not produced the same. The aforesaid
extension was recorded on 29.06.1985. The trial court has held on
consideration of evidence that even on expiry of the aforesaid
extended time, the mutation order was not produced, hence,
evidently, time was not the essence of contract and the plaintiffs
were competent to bring the suit on the date of knowledge of
refusal to perform the contract and from that day the suit was
within time under Article 54 of the Limitation Act.
6. Evidently, this Civil Second Appeal contains no substantial
questions of law, hence, it stands dismissed.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
7-nitin/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
