Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Panna Ram Through Lrs vs Pana Devi (2025:Rj-Jd:5132) on 27 January, 2025
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2025:RJ-JD:5132]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 73/2019
Panna Ram S/o Shri Aadu Ram (Since deceased) through
his Legal Representatives :-
1. Mani Ram S/o Panna Ram, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
2. Shankar Lal Through Lrs S/o Panna Ram, Chak 57 N.p.,
Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
2/1. Salochana D/o Sankar Lal, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
2/2. Santosh D/o Shankar Lal, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
2/3. Bimla Devi D/o Shankar Lal, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
2/4. Roshni Devi D/o Shankar Lal, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
2/5. Girdawari @ Roshni D/o Shankar Lal, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
2/6. Sultana Ram S/o Shankar Lal, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
2/7. Prem Kumar S/o Shankar Lal, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
2/8. Menpal S/o Shankar Lal, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
2/9. Suman D/o Shankar Lal, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
3. Kashi Ram Through Lrs S/o Panna Ram, Chak 57 N.p.,
Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
3/1. Guddi Devi W/o Kashi Ram, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
3/2. Mamta Devi D/o Kashi Ram, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
3/3. Krishna Devi D/o Kashi Ram, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
(Downloaded on 28/01/2025 at 10:53:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5132] (2 of 5) [CFA-73/2019]
3/4. Ranjeet Kumar S/o Kashi Ram, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
3/5. Shyopat Ram S/o Kashi Ram, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
3/6. Anjubala D/o Kashi Ram, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
4. Birma D/o Panna Ram, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
5. Ramswaroop S/o Panna Ram, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
6. Indra D/o Panna Ram, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil Raisinghnagar,
District Sri Ganganagar.
7. Krishan Lal S/o Panna Ram, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
8. Rahu Ram S/o Panna Ram, Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Pana Devi W/o Shri Surja Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o Chak
57 N.p., Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan)
2. Kali Devi D/o Shri Surja Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o Chak 57
N.p., Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan)
3. Mamkori D/o Shri Surja Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o Chak 57
N.p., Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan)
4. Banwari Lal S/o Shri Surja Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o Chak
57 N.p., Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan)
5. Bhika Ram S/o Shri Surja Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o Chak
57 N.p., Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan)
6. Lrs Pf Daleep, S/o Shri Surja Ram (Since Deceased)
6/1. Sulochana Devi @ Vimla Devi W/o Shri Daleep, B/c
Meghwal, R/o Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District
Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)
(Downloaded on 28/01/2025 at 10:53:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:5132] (3 of 5) [CFA-73/2019]
6/2. Ravindra S/o Shri Daleep, B/c Meghwal, R/o Chak 57
N.p., Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan)
6/3. Neetu S/o Shri Daleep, Minor Through Its Natural
Guardian Mother Sulochana Devi @ Vimla Devi Wd/o Shri
Daleep, B/c Meghwal, R/o Chak 57 N.p., Tehsil
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Lokendra Singh Rathore for
Mr. Trilok Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.K. Agarwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
27/01/2025
1. This civil first appeal has been listed for final disposal at the
admission stage itself.
2. Heard the parties.
3. The original plaintiff had brought the suit for specific
performance of contract against the respondents. The suit was
dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 02.02.2019 passed in
Regular Civil Suit No.53/2011 on the ground that time was
essence of the contract and the suit was filed beyond period of
three years, hence, the suit was barred by limitation. Legal
representatives of the plaintiffs are appellants here.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the trial
Judge has misunderstood the provisions of Article 54 of the
Limitation Act as well as the contents of the agreement between
the parties dated 04.06.2002.
[2025:RJ-JD:5132] (4 of 5) [CFA-73/2019]
5. Learned counsel submits that Surajram, husband of
respondent No.1-Smt. Pana Devi and father of other respondents
was recorded Khatedar in respect of agricultural land, fully
detailed in the plaint, ad-measuring area 6 bigha and 6 biswa.
After death of Surajram, the respondents to fulfill their domestic
need proposed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff-appellants.
6. A written agreement was signed between the parties on
04.06.2002, whereby the entire area of bigha 6 and 6 biswas was
agreed to be sold to the plaintiff-appellants at the rate of Rs.20
thousand per bigha. Total consideration money goes to rupees one
lakh twenty six thousand. Out of that, rupees one lakh was paid
as advance consideration money and possession of the land was
handed over to the purchaser.
7. On 27.07.2011, the appellants sent legal notice to the
respondents to perform the contract and the respondents refused
the same in their reply dated 18.08.2011 when cause of action
arose and the suit was filed on 25.07.2011.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that a bare
perusal of the agreement between the parties vide Ex.1 would
show that there was stipulation in the agreement that the vendor
would get their name mutated in the revenue records as Khatedar
till 15.01.2005 and shall produce the document of mutation to the
plaintiff-appellants. If they would refuse to execute the registered
sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff purchaser, the plaintiff would be
entitle to double the amount of the advance consideration money
along with interest and shall recover from the property of the
vendor. If the plaintiff purchaser would not be satisfied with the
double amount, then he can enforce the decree through process of
[2025:RJ-JD:5132] (5 of 5) [CFA-73/2019]
law. In the agreement, there is no stipulation asking the plaintiff
to perform his part within time frame.
9. The provisions of Article 54 reads as follows :
54. For specific performance of Three years The date fixed for performance,
a contract or, if no such date is fixed,
when the plaintiff has notice
that performance is refused.
10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that
when no such date is fixed, the cause of action for the suit would
arise when the plaintiff has noticed that performance of the
contract has been refused by the defendant. Therefore, evidently
the cause of action has been pleaded to arose within period of
three years.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the judgment
of the trial Court and has reexamined the terms of the agreement,
but could not satisfy the Court that any time limit was fixed for
performance of the contract by the plaintiff-appellants.
12. In the circumstance, the impugned judgment is hereby set
aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Judge to decide
the suit after full trial framing issues of law and fact according to
law.
13. Accordingly, the instant civil first appeal stands disposed of.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
49-deep/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
