Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jamna Devi vs Ravi on 11 November, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:47975]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 470/2022
Jamna Devi W/o Shri Bheemaram, Aged About 55 Years, By
Caste Darji, R/o Junjani, Presently Resident Of Bhinmal, Tehsil
Bhinmal, District Jalore (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Ravi S/o Adopted S/o Sanwalchand, R/o Bhinmal, Tehsil
Bhinmal, District Jalore (Raj.)
2. Sua Devi D/o Sanwalchand, W/o Vijayraj, R/o Bhinmal,
Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore (Raj.)
3. Manju Devi D/o Sanwalchand, W/o Madan, R/o Bhinmal,
Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore (Raj.)
4. Shanti Devi W/o Widow Of Sanwalchand, (Name Deleted
On Account Of Death On 25-07-2012), R/o Bhinmal,
Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore (Raj.)
5. Aandi Devi D/o Sanwalchand, W/o Bhalechand, R/o
Bhinmal, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore (Raj.)
6. Pista Devi D/o Sanwalchand, W/o Bhanwarlal, R/o
Bhinmal, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Teja Ram
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Vishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
Reserved on: 15.10.2025
Pronounced on: 11/11/2025
1. The dispute involved in the present first appeal preferred by
the appellant - defendant No.4 arises out of a dispute concerning
possession of a shop situated at Malniyon Ka Chouhata, Tehsil
Bhinmal, District Jalore. The plaintiffs - respondents Nos.1 to 3
instituted a civil suit seeking cancellation of the registered sale
deed dated 27.09.2009 on the ground that defendant No.1 - Smt.
Shanti Devi (since deceased) had no exclusive right or authority to
sell the suit property in favour of the appellant - defendant No.4.
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 04:49:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47975] (2 of 5) [CFA-470/2022]
According to the plaintiffs, the husband of defendant No.1, namely
Late Shri Sanwalchand, was the owner of the shop situated at
Malniyon Ka Chouhata, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore. Upon his
demise, the said property devolved upon his legal heirs, namely
his wife (Smt. Shanti Devi), his four daughters, and his adopted
son (plaintiff - respondent No.1, Shri Ravi) - each inheriting an
undivided one-sixth share in the suit property. It was further
alleged that the husband of proforma respondent No.6 -
defendant No.3, by misleading and influencing Smt. Shanti Devi
into confidence, fraudulently caused the execution of a registered
sale deed in favour of the present appellant - defendant No.4.
2. A written statement was filed on behalf of defendant No.1 -
Smt. Shanti Devi, wherein it was pleaded that her son-in-law, i.e.,
the husband of defendant No.3, deceitfully took her to the Court
on the false pretext that a rent deed in favour of the tenant, Shri
Bheema Ram, was to be executed. It was alleged that by keeping
her in complete ignorance, her son-in-law procured the execution
of the sale deed in favour of the appellant - Smt. Jamna Devi. A
separate written statement was also filed on behalf of proforma
respondent No.6 - defendant No.3 (Smt. Pista Devi), denying that
plaintiff No.1 - Shri Ravi, was the adopted son of Late Shri
Sanwalchand and Smt. Shanti Devi. It was further asserted that
Late Shri Sanwalchand and Smt. Shanti Devi had four daughters,
namely, Smt. Sua Devi and Smt. Manju Devi (plaintiffs Nos.2 and
3 - respondents Nos.2 and 3), and Smt. Aandi Devi and Smt.
Pista Devi (defendants Nos.2 and 3 - proforma respondents Nos.5
and 6). It was further contended that the daughters had
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 04:49:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47975] (3 of 5) [CFA-470/2022]
relinquished their rights in their father's property upon marriage
and were neither using nor enjoying the same. It was accordingly
asserted that Smt. Shanti Devi was the sole and exclusive owner
of the suit property, and that she, of her own free will and volition,
executed a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant -
defendant, Smt. Jamna Devi, before the Sub-Registrar, Bhinmal,
on 27.02.2003. It was also stated that the appellant - defendant
had been in possession of the suit property since the date of sale.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the
documents available on record, the learned Trial Court framed the
following issues for adjudication:-
"1. आया वादीगण के वादपत्र के पद संख्या 2 में वर्णित पडौस की दक
ू ान
वादीगण व प्रतिवादी सं. 1 लगायत 3 की पुश्तैनी सम्पति होने से प्रत्येक
का संपति में 1/6 हिस्सा है ?
2. आया वादीगण विवादित दक
ू ान के संबंध में प्रतिवादी सं.4 के पक्ष में
प्रतिवादी सं. 1 द्वारा करवाया गया बेचाननामा दिनांक 27.02.2009 को
अपने हिस्से तक का बेचाननामा निरस्त करवाने के अधिकारी है ?
3. आया प्रतिवादी सं.4 से वादीगण विवादित दक
ू ान का खाली कब्जा प्राप्त
करने के अधिकारी है ?
4. आया प्रतिवादी सं4 के विरुद्ध वादीगण विवादित दक
ु ान के संबंध में
स्थायी निषेधाज्ञा प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी है ?
5. आया मत
ृ क सांवलचंद का वादी सं. 1 रवि गोदपत्र
ु नहीं है ?
6. आया विवादित दक
ू ान में वादी सं. 2. 3 तथा प्रतिवादी सं2 अणची व
सं. 3 पिस्ता को कोई अधिकार नहीं था बल्कि प्रतिवादी सं . 1 शांतिदे वी
अकेली मालिक रही है ?
7. आया वादीगण ने वाद का कम मूल्यांकन किया है जिसका वाद पर क्या
प्रभाव पड़ेगा?"
4. The trial Court while dealing with the issues held that issue
No.5, which pertains to whether plaintiff - respondent No.1 was
the adopted son of Late Shri Sanwalchand, was decided against
the plaintiffs and in favour of proforma respondent No.6 -
defendant No.3. However, Issues Nos.1, 2, 3, and 4 were decided
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 04:49:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47975] (4 of 5) [CFA-470/2022]
in favour of plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 and defendants Nos.2 and 3,
being the daughters of Late Shri Sanwalchand. Issue No.6 was
also decided in favour of plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 and defendants
Nos.1, 2, and 3, who are the wife and daughters of Late Shri
Sanwalchand.
5. Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the parties, the learned Trial Court concluded that no
material was brought on record to establish that the plaintiffs
Nos.2 and 3 or defendants Nos.2 and 3 had relinquished their
rights in their father's property after their marriages.
6. The learned Trial Court, therefore, held that defendant No.1
- Smt. Shanti Devi did not have exclusive right, title, or ownership
in the suit property and consequently lacked the competence to
execute the sale deed for the entire property. It was further held
that plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 and defendants Nos.1, 2, and 3, being
the wife and daughters of Late Shri Sanwalchand, each held an
equal one-fifth undivided share in the property. As a result, the
sale deed executed by Smt. Shanti Devi in favour of appellant -
defendant No.4 was held to be valid only to the extent of her
share and void to the extent it purported to sell the undivided
share of other co-owners. Accordingly, the trial Court granted a
decree for possession and permanent injunction against the
appellant - defendant No.4.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the record, this Court finds that the suit property is an
ancestral and undivided property. Therefore, defendant No.1 -
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 04:49:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47975] (5 of 5) [CFA-470/2022]
Smt. Shanti Devi lacked the competency to alienate the entire
property without determining and partitioning her specific share so
as to bind the other co-owners. The appellant - defendant No.4,
Smt. Jamna Devi, consequently, could not have acquired right,
title, and interest in the entirety of the suit property merely on the
basis of the registered sale deed executed by Smt. Shanti Devi.
8. In view of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,
the said sale deed, if at all, may be treated as valid to the extent
of the share of Smt. Shanti Devi but cannot be construed as
binding upon the other co-owners. This Court finds that although
the appellant - defendant No.4 may have acted in good faith and
without any illegality on her part, the transfer of the undivided and
unpartitioned property in its entirety solely by Smt. Shanti Devi
was invalid beyond her own share.
9. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present first
appeal. The appeal stands dismissed, affirming the judgment and
decree dated 20.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional District
Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore, in Civil Original Suit No.14/2010
(Ravi & Ors. v. Shanti Devi & Ors.).
10. However, the appellant - defendant No.4, Smt. Jamna Devi,
shall be at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings for general
partition, if so advised, to have her purchased share demarcated
in accordance with law.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
129-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 11/11/2025 at 04:49:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
