Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Of Smt. Mitha Bai vs Smt. Hulsi Devi on 25 November, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:49326]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 133/2025
1. Lrs Of Smt. Mitha Bai, Widow Of Late Shri Sardar Singh
(Since Deceased) Through Her Legal Representatives.
2. Jaswant Singh S/o Late Shri Sardar Singh, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Wada, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi.
3. Bharat Singh S/o Late Shri Sardar Singh, Aged About 44
Years, R/o Wada, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi.
4. Smt. Kamla W/o Shri Indra Singh, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o Naya Ghar, Kasindra, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi.
----Appellants
Versus
Smt. Hulsi Devi W/o Shri Sampat Raj., R/o Kiwarli, Tehsil Abu
Road, District Sirohi.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Narpat Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chetan Prakash Soni
Ms. Saritha Devi Soni
Mr. Hitesh Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
Reserved on: 12/11/2025
Pronounced on: 25/11/2025
1. The present first appeal under Section 96 of C.P.C. has been
preferred by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and
decree dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional District
Judge No.2, Abu Road, District Sirohi in Civil Original Suit
No.14/2017 (29/2012) titled as "Smt. Hullasi Devi v. Smt.
Meethabai & Ors.", whereby the suit for possession, permanent
and mandatory injunction and recovery of damages in respect of
the suit property was decreed.
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:30:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49326] (2 of 6) [CFA-133/2025]
2. In the suit preferred by the plaintiff, it was pleaded that late
Sardar Singh and his brother Laxman Singh were joint owners of
the suit property situated at Village Panchayat Kavarli through
patta No.30, comprising kachha houses and adjoining land. Upon
partition between the brothers, the southern house came to the
share of Sardar Singh. Being the absolute owner of his share,
Sardar Singh sold a portion of his share of property admeasuring
652.5 sq. ft. with its boundaries to the plaintiff by a registered
sale deed and handed over the possession of the same to the
plaintiff. However, on 02.07.2011, when the plaintiff had gone out
of Abu Road for her daughter's marriage, the defendants
trespassed into the suit property and obtained an ex parte
injunction by filing a suit for permanent injunction against the
plaintiff's husband. After returning from her daughter's marriage
on 19.07.2011 and discovering the illegal acts of the defendants,
the plaintiff requested them to vacate the suit property, but the
same was of no avail. It was further averred that the defendants
were continuously damaging the suit property and attempting to
make unauthorized alterations therein. The plaintiff, therefore,
prayed for a decree for removal of the defendants' illegal
possession, delivery of possession of the property and a decree of
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any
construction, making alterations, or transferring the suit property
in any manner. She also sought mesne profits for use and
occupation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month from the date of
institution of the suit till delivery of possession, along with
compensation of Rs.9,000/-.
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:30:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49326] (3 of 6) [CFA-133/2025]
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants,
the issuance of patta No.30 in the names of Sardar Singh and
Laxman Singh was admitted. However, it was pleaded that no
partition had ever took place between them. It was further stated
that the patta was issued jointly as the disputed property was
ancestral property. The allegation regarding forcible dispossession
between 02.07.2011 and 19.07.2011 was denied. The defendants
also asserted that the sale deed dated 02.03.1989 was forged and
fabricated and therefore, the same is liable to be declared null and
void. On these grounds, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the
suit. A counterclaim seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated
02.03.1989 was also filed.
4. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the
parties, framed as many as seven issues including the relief
clause, which read as under:-
"¼1½& vk;k okn in l¡[;k 2 esa vafdr prqfnZ"kk o uki dk ifjlj fnuk¡d 02-
03-1989 dks izfroknh;k ds ifr ljnkj flag us viuk iw.kZ ekfydkuk gksus ls :i;s
5]000@& udn izkIr dj oknh;k dks tfj;s iathÑr foØ;&foys[k ds foØ; dj dCtk
lqiqnZ dj fn;k] rc ls oknh;k yxkrkj dkfct gS ------------------okfn;k
¼2½& vk;k fnuk¡d 02-07-2011 ls fnuk¡d 19-07-2011 ds e/; izfroknh;k us oknh;k ds
edku esa vukf/kÑr izos"k dj edku esa iM+k ?kj fcØh dk lkeku vius dCts esa ys fy;k
,oa edku ij vfrØe.k dj dCtk ys fy;k\ ------------------okfn;k
¼3½& vk;k izfroknh;k oknh;k ds edku esa rksMQksM dj {kfrxzLr djus dks] edku esas
ifjorZu ifjo/kZu djus dks ,oa edku dks foØ; gLrkUrj.k jgu djus dks vkeknk gS\
------------------okfn;k
¼4½& vk;k oknh;k vius Hkw[k.M dk mi;ksx miHkksx djus ls oafpr gks jgh gS ftlls
gtkZuk "kqYd oknh;k izfroknh;k ls 1000@& izfrekg dCtk izkIr gksus rd izkIr djus
dh vf/kdkjh gS\ -------------okfn;k
¼5½& vk;k oknh;k ds i{k esa fu'ikfnr foØ;&i= fof/k dh utj esa vÑr] "kwU; ,oa
izHkkoghu gS tks izfroknh;k ij ck/;dkjh ugha gS\ ------------------izfrokfn;k
¼6½& vk;k izfroknh;k izfrdwy dCts ds vk/kkj ij LokfeRo vf/kdkjkas dh ?kks'k.kk djokus
dh vf/kdkjh gS\ ------------------izfrokfn;k
¼7½& vk;k izfroknh;k oknh;k ls fo"ks'k gtkZuk #i;s 50]000@& izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh
gS\ ------------------izfrokfn;k
¼8½& vuqrks'k \"
5. The learned trial Court decided issues No.1, 2 and 4 in favour
of the plaintiff and against the defendants. issue No.3 was decided
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:30:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49326] (4 of 6) [CFA-133/2025]
against the plaintiff, whereas issues No.5, 6 and 7 were decided
against the plaintiff.
6. The issue for determination before this Court is whether the
trial Court erred in concluding that Sardar Singh was the absolute
owner competent to execute the sale deed dated 02.03.1989, and
whether the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the
plaintiff is legally justified.
7. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Kehar
Singh (D) THR. L.R.S. & Ors v. Nachittar Kaur & Ors.'
(2018) 14 SCC 445 decided on 20.08.2018.
8. Upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence
produced before the trial Court, this Court finds that issues No.1
and 2, being fundamental issues, were rightly decided in favour of
the plaintiff, as it was proved that late Sardar Singh was the
absolute owner of the portion of the property described in para 2
of the plaint and that he executed a registered sale deed dated
02.03.1989 in favour of the plaintiff. The exhibit-03 on record
indicate that Laxman Singh had expressed no objection to the sale
of the share in the property. No material or evidence was
produced to establish that the registered sale deed dated
02.03.1989 was either forged or fabricated. The plaintiff further
successfully established that between 02.07.2011 and
19.07.2011, taking advantage of her absence, the defendants
unlawfully entered the premises and took unauthorized possession
and damaged the property.
9. With regard to the argument advanced by learned counsel
for the appellant contended that the suit property is ancestral
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:30:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49326] (5 of 6) [CFA-133/2025]
property, and therefore, even if the patta was issued jointly in the
names of late Sardar Singh and Laxman Singh, the same could
not have been sold without any legal necessity, this Court finds
that patta No.30 was issued jointly in the names of late Sardar
Singh and Laxman Singh. The mere issuance of a joint patta does
not establish that the property is ancestral, particularly when no
evidence was led before the trial Court to prove such a fact.
10. On the contrary, exhibit-03 establishes that Laxman Singh
had given his no objection to the sale of the share by late Sardar
Singh. Despite having ample opportunity, Laxman Singh did not
appear as a witness before the learned trial Court. The
counterclaim seeking a declaration that the registered sale deed
dated 02.03.1989 is void and ineffective was rejected by the trial
Court, and no appeal against such dismissed has been preferred
by the appellants.
11. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds
no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the findings recorded by the
learned trial Court. The plaintiff has successfully proved her title
and possession through a valid registered sale deed, whereas the
defendants have failed to establish that the sale deed dated
02.03.1989 was forged or void. The finding of unauthorized
possession by the defendants also stands duly proved. This Court
also finds that since the counterclaim has been rejected and no
appeal was filed against the same, the appellants cannot be
permitted to reagitate the said issue.
12. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The
judgment and decree dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:30:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49326] (6 of 6) [CFA-133/2025]
Additional District Judge No.2, Abu Road, District Sirohi is
affirmed. No order as to costs.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
166-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:30:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
