Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Of Ajmer Singh vs Harbaai on 12 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:48455]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 246/2024
1. Lrs Of Ajmer Singh, S/o Gurdayal Singh, R/o 6-H, Tehsil
Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.)
1/1. Jaswant Kaur W/o Ajmer Singh, Aged About 77 Years, R/o
6-H, Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.)
1/2. Dharmendra Singh S/o Ajmer Singh, Aged About 36
Years, R/o 6-H, Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar
(Raj.)
1/3. Kulvindra Kaur W/o Shri Fateh Singh, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Khanuwali, Tehsil Rawla, Dist. Sriganganagar
(Raj.)
1.4. Sukhvindra Kaur W/o Shri Laabh Singh, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Bhatiwala, Tehsil Srivijaynagar, Dist.
Sriganganagar (Raj.)
2. Lrs Of Iqbal Singh, S/o Gurdayal Singh, R/o 6-H, Tehsil
Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.)
2/1. Baljeet Kaur W/o Iqbal Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
6-H, Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.)
2/2. Kuldeep Singh S/o Iqbal Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
6-H, Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.)
2/3. Gagandeep Singh S/o Iqbal Singh, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o 6-H, Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.)
2/4. Hardeep Singh S/o Iqbal Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
6-H, Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.)
2/5. Amanpaal Kaur W/o Angrej Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o 8 A.p.d. Tehsil Srivijaynagar, D/o Iqbal Singh, R/o 6-
H, Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.)
2/6. Sukhvindra Kaur D/o Iqbal Singh, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o 6-H, Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.)
2/7. Rajni D/o Iqbal Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 6-H,
Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.)
3. Smt. Jaswant Kaur W/o Ajmer Singh, Aged About 77
Years, R/o 6-H, Tehsil Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar
(Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:23:15 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/11/2025 at 07:24:49 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48455] (2 of 10) [CSA-246/2024]
1. Harbaai W/o Shri Prabhudayal, R/o Hajarikala, Tehsil And
Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
2. Tehsildar Revenue And Land Acquisition, Anupgarh, Dist.
Sriganganagar (Raj.)
3. Sub Registrar, Anupgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.)
4. District Collector, Sriganganagar (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Jain
Mr. Darshan Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.L. Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 12/11/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 18/08/2025
BY THE COURT:-
1. By way of the present Civil Second Appeal, the appellants
have assailed the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2024 passed
by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Anoopgarh, District
Sri Ganganagar, in Civil Appeal No. 8/2020, whereby the learned
Appellate Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal preferred by
the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2020
rendered by the learned Civil Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar, in Civil Original Case No. 61/2017 (77/2017), which
had been partly decreed in favour of the respondents.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent
No.1-plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and permanent
injunction against the appellants, asserting ownership over
agricultural land situated at Chak 4-H, Tehsil Anoopgarh, Muraba
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:23:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48455] (3 of 10) [CSA-246/2024]
No. 99/56 (New Muraba No. 39, Pathar No. 99/56), admeasuring
25 bighas, which had been allotted free of cost by the State
Government in favour of Smt. Harbai, widow of Prabhudayal. The
plaintiff contended that she never executed any Power of Attorney
dated 30.04.1979 in favour of Ajmer Singh (defendant No. 1) and
that the alleged document was forged, fabricated, and
unnotarized, thereby conferring no legal authority upon the said
defendant. It was alleged that relying upon this bogus instrument,
defendant No. 1 unlawfully alienated the suit land partly to his
brother (defendant No. 2) and partly to defendant No. 3 through
two registered sale deeds dated 29.03.2012 executed before the
Sub-Registrar, Anoopgarh. The plaintiff averred that the impugned
sale deeds were void ab initio, as no consent or authorization had
ever been granted, and that the purported sale consideration of
₹4,00,000/- was grossly undervalued, the actual market worth
being in excess of ₹11,00,000/-. On discovering the transactions
on 18.06.2012, the plaintiff filed the suit within the period of
limitation, seeking a declaration that the sale deeds executed on
the strength of the alleged Power of Attorney be declared null and
void and set aside.
2.1. The defendants filed a joint written statement, denying the
allegations and asserting that the plaintiff had voluntarily executed
a sale agreement dated 30.04.1979 in favour of defendant No. 1
and his mother for a consideration of ₹60,000/-, out of which
₹55,000/- was paid in cash. It was further pleaded that, in
pursuance thereof, the plaintiff executed a duly notarized Power of
Attorney in favour of defendant No. 1, drafted by Advocate Murari
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:23:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48455] (4 of 10) [CSA-246/2024]
Lal Meda in the presence of Dhanna Singh and Laxman Ram, with
her thumb impression affixed in their presence. The defendants
contended that possession of the suit land was handed over to
Kirtar Kaur on the date of agreement, who remained in possession
till her death on 06.12.1995, after which the defendants continued
in lawful possession. It was also pleaded that a criminal complaint
lodged by the plaintiff culminated in FIR No. 493/2012, in which
investigation allegedly confirmed the authenticity of the Power of
Attorney. The defendants further relied on the fact that one Sugan
Devi Kaur had filed a suit for specific performance concerning the
same land, which she later withdrew upon being apprised of the
defendants' ownership.
2.2. Upon completion of pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed
four issues, including that of relief. The plaintiff examined four
witnesses and produced twelve documents, whereas the
defendants examined eight witnesses and exhibited thirty-three
documents. After evaluating the evidence, the learned Civil Judge,
Anoopgarh, by judgment and decree dated 31.08.2020, partly
decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, the
defendants preferred Civil Appeal No. 8/2020 before the learned
Additional District Judge, Anoopgarh, which came to be dismissed
vide judgment dated 16.11.2024 thereby affirming the findings
and decree of the learned Trial Court. Hence the instant Second
Appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contend that the
judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are contrary to
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:23:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48455] (5 of 10) [CSA-246/2024]
law and facts and deserve to be quashed and set aside. It is
submitted that the Trial Court improperly framed the issues, which
prevented the parties from adducing evidence relevant to the real
controversy, and that the Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction
by deciding Issue No. 1 in favor of the plaintiff without considering
the cross-appeal. The courts below erred in holding that the sale
deeds dated 29.03.2012 were void-ab-initio, despite clear
evidence establishing the authenticity of the Power of Attorney
dated 30.04.1979 and subsequent transactions. It is further
submitted that the Trial Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction as the
suit sought a declaration nullifying sale deeds valued over
₹8,00,000/-, exceeding its statutory limit of ₹2,00,000/-, and that
proper court fees were not assessed, since the plaintiff was
admittedly a party to the documents. The appellants further
contend that the Power of Attorney was a general power conferred
in conjunction with the sale agreement, and alleged corrections
therein do not invalidate it; the courts below failed to consider the
documents and evidence, including prior exoneration of the
defendants in a criminal case concerning the Power of Attorney, in
a holistic and judicial manner. The substantial questions of law
arising in this appeal include whether the courts below were
justified in decreeing the suit, whether the Trial Court had
pecuniary jurisdiction, whether proper court fees were paid,
whether issues were properly framed, and whether the finding
that the plaintiff was not a party to the Power of Attorney is legally
sustainable.
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:23:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48455] (6 of 10) [CSA-246/2024]
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has
vehemently opposed the appeal, contending that both the courts
below have concurrently recorded findings of fact after due
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, and
such concurrent findings do not warrant interference under
Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is submitted
that the very foundation of the defendants' claim--the alleged
Power of Attorney dated 30.04.1979 (Ex. P-1)--has been
categorically found to be forged and fabricated. The interpolation
on the second page of the said document, wherein the phrase
"विकय की स्वीकृति प्राप्त करें " was altered to "विक्रय करें स्वीकृति प्राप्त करें ", is
apparent, conspicuous, and unmistakably establishes that
manipulation was carried out with the intent to create an
unfounded authority of sale. The document was thus rendered
void ab initio, and consequently, the subsequent sale deeds
executed on the basis of such forged authority are themselves
nullities in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further submitted that
the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex. P-2)
unequivocally corroborates the finding of forgery, thereby
rendering the defence of the appellants unsustainable. It was
argued that once the substratum--the Power of Attorney--is
proved to be forged, all subsequent transactions founded upon it
automatically crumble, irrespective of their formality or
registration.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that Ajmer
Singh, the principal defendant, had already preferred an appeal
before the learned First Appellate Court, which was dismissed
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:23:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48455] (7 of 10) [CSA-246/2024]
after detailed and reasoned consideration of every factual and
legal aspect. The concurrent findings of both the courts below are
based upon cogent evidence and sound reasoning. No perversity,
misreading of evidence, or jurisdictional error has been
demonstrated by the appellants. The contention regarding
pecuniary jurisdiction and payment of court fees has been rightly
repelled by both the courts, as the plaintiff, not being a party to
the impugned sale deeds, was competent to seek declaratory
relief on the valuation furnished in the plaint. Thus, the appeal
deserves outright dismissal.
6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone
through the judgments impugned and examined the material as
made available on record.
7. Having given my anxious consideration to the rival
submissions advanced at the Bar and having meticulously perused
the material available on record, this Court finds no cogent ground
warranting interference with the concurrent findings rendered by
the courts below. The findings impugned are well-reasoned,
founded upon due appreciation of evidence, and cannot be
characterized as either perverse or legally infirm. The primary
contention of the appellants hinges upon the alleged validity of the
Power of Attorney dated 30.04.1979 (Ex. P-1); however, a bare
ocular scrutiny of the said instrument reveals manifest tampering
and interpolation. On the second page of the document, the
phrase "विकय की स्वीकृति प्राप्त करें " has been palpably altered to read
as "विक्रय करें स्वीकृति प्राप्त करें ". The alteration is patent, conspicuous,
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:23:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48455] (8 of 10) [CSA-246/2024]
and goes to the root of the document, unmistakably
demonstrating that the Power of Attorney was manipulated with
the ulterior motive of converting a limited authority of consent into
a plenary authority of sale. Such interpolation strikes at the very
substratum of the document, rendering it void ab initio.
8. It is well-settled that a document tainted by forgery cannot
create, transfer, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in
immovable property. The principle that fraus et jus nunquam
cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) is squarely
attracted in the present case. The forensic examination report (Ex.
P-2) unequivocally substantiates that the disputed writing and
alterations in the Power of Attorney are not genuine.
Consequently, all subsequent sale deeds dated 29.03.2012, which
derive their legitimacy solely from the said forged Power of
Attorney, stand nullified as derivative nullities. It is trite that when
the foundation of a transaction is vitiated by fraud, every
superstructure raised upon it collapses automatically. Hence, the
contention that subsequent conveyances were otherwise regular
or duly registered becomes wholly immaterial; no edifice of
legality can stand on a fraudulent base.
9. The learned Trial Court, upon a comprehensive appreciation of
the evidence, has rightly declared the Power of Attorney and the
consequent sale deeds as void and inoperative, and consequently
issued an appropriate injunction restraining the appellants from
interfering with the respondent's lawful possession. The learned
First Appellate Court, while re-examining the entire record, has
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:23:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48455] (9 of 10) [CSA-246/2024]
affirmed these findings with cogent reasoning and detailed
analysis. It has rightly observed that the interpolation in Ex. P-1 is
not a mere clerical correction but a deliberate and material
alteration intended to fabricate an authority to alienate property.
Such conduct vitiates the entire transaction and strikes at the core
of contractual and fiduciary obligations. The appellate findings are
thus firmly anchored in both fact and law and warrant no
reappraisal by this Court.
10. At this juncture, it is pertinent to reiterate the settled legal
principle that the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of
the Code of Civil Procedure is circumscribed and can be invoked
only when a substantial question of law is demonstrably involved.
The legislative intent underlying Section 100 CPC is to restrict
interference by the High Court in concurrent findings of fact,
thereby maintaining the sanctity of finality in factual
determinations. A substantial question of law must be one of
general importance or one which directly and substantially affects
the rights of the parties and which has not been settled by
authoritative pronouncement. Mere erroneous appreciation of
evidence or dissatisfaction with findings of fact does not constitute
such a question.
11. In the instant case, the appellants have failed to formulate or
establish any substantial question of law that merits consideration.
Their challenge is confined to re-assessment of documentary and
oral evidence, which squarely falls within the prohibited domain of
this Court's revisional scrutiny under Section 100 CPC. The
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:23:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48455] (10 of 10) [CSA-246/2024]
concurrent findings of the courts below being well-reasoned and
founded upon credible evidence, do not call for any interference.
Accordingly, this Court holds that no substantial question of law
arises for adjudication in the present second appeal.
12. For the reasons aforestated, the Second Appeal stands
dismissed as being devoid of merit. The judgments and decrees
dated 31.08.2020 and 16.11.2024 passed by the learned Civil
Judge, Anoopgarh, and the learned Additional District Judge No.1,
Anoopgarh, in Civil Original Case No.61/2017 (77/2017) and Civil
Appeal No.08/2020 respectively, are hereby affirmed. The decree
of declaration and injunction issued in favour of the respondent-
plaintiff is upheld in toto. No order as to costs.
(FARJAND ALI),J
38-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 12:23:15 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
