Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhergir vs Mani Ram on 25 November, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:49325]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 243/2025
Bhergir S/o Chetangir Gunsai, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of
Purabsar Tehsil Rawatsar District Hanumangarh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Mani Ram S/o Birbal Ram, Resident Of Munsari, Tehsil
Bhadra District Hanumangarh.
2. Shanti Devi W/o Hanuman Prasad, Ex-Wife Of Birbal Ram,
Resident Of Ward No. 19, Rawatsar Tehsil Rawatsar
District Hanumangarh.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Sub Registrar, Pallu Tehsil
Rawatsar District Hanumangarh.
4. Indra W/o Shankar Lal, D/o Birbal Ram, Resident Of
Topariyan, Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh.
5. Kamla W/o Chandrabhan, D/o Birbal Ram,, Resident Of
Topariyan Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Binja Ram
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
Reserved on: 11/11/2025
Pronounced on: 25/11/2025
1. The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant-defendant No.2
(Bhergir) against the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2025
passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh in Civil Appeal Decree No.03/2023 (46/2019),
whereby the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2019 passed by
the learned Civil Judge, Rawatsar, Hanumangarh in Civil Original
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:39:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49325] (2 of 4) [CSA-243/2025]
Suit No.32/2011 (163/2014), titled Maniram v. Shanti Devi & Ors.,
was affirmed.
2. The facts in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present
appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory
injunction and cancellation of the sale deed dated 10.10.1990. It
was alleged in the suit that defendant No.1 - Shanti Devi, mother
of the plaintiff, on the basis of a forged death certificate of her
husband Birbalram (father of the plaintiff), got the agricultural
land belonging to him mutated in her name in the revenue
records. Thereafter, by preparing another forged document, she
sold the said agricultural land to defendant No.2. The sale deed
was registered on 10.10.1990 by the Sub-Registrar, Rawatsar.
3. Birbalram, the father of the plaintiff and husband of defendant
No.1, remained alive until 09.09.2002. An FIR No.67/2011,
concerning the alleged forgery by defendant No.1 came to be
lodged against her, pursuant to which she was arrested and
subsequently convicted by the competent criminal court. The
learned trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
framed as many as six issues, including the issue relating to relief.
The issues framed by the learned trial Court are reproduced below
for ready reference:
"1. आया वादी इस आशय की घोषणा प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है कि दिनां क
10.10.90 को निष्पादित दस्तावेज बैयनामा बहक प्रतिवादी संख्या 2 एक कूटरचित
दस्तावेज है . जो छलकपट से तैयार किया गया है तथा विधिविरुद्ध, अकृत, शून्य व
प्रभावहीन है ? -वादी
2. आया वादी इस न्यायालय से अनुषां गिक अनुतोष के रूप में यह अनुतोष प्राप्त करने
का अधिकारी है कि बैयनामा दिनां क 10.10.90 के निरस्त होने पर राजस्व रिकॉर्ड में
अंकित प्रवितादी संख्या 2 का नाम कलमजन किया जाकर उसमें स्व० बीरबलराम के
वारिस वादी एवं प्रतिवादी संख्या 4 व 5 का नाम दर्ज किया जावे? -वादी
3. आया वादी विरूद्ध प्रतिवादी संख्या 2 इस आशय की स्थायी निषेधाज्ञा प्राप्त करने
का अधिकारी है कि बैयनामा दिनां क 10.10.90 के आधार पर दर्ज नामां तरण के
आधार पर किसी भी व्यक्ति को बैयनामे में अं कित भूमि का रहन बैय या किसी भी
प्रकार से मुन्तकिल करने से निषेद्ध रहे ? -वादी
4. आया दावा मियाद बाहर है ? - प्रतिवादी संख्या 2
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:39:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49325] (3 of 4) [CSA-243/2025]
5. आया प्रतिवादी 35 (ए) व 35 (बी) के तहत वादी से खर्चा प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी
है ?- प्रतिवादी संख्या 2
6. अनु तोष?"
4. The learned trial Court recorded a finding of fact that defendant
No.1 - Shanti Devi had left Birbalram and started living with one
Hanuman Prasad. During the lifetime of Birbalram, she conspired
with Upsarpanch Sheolal and procured forged and fabricated Will
and death certificate of Birbalram. On the basis of these forged
documents, the disputed land was mutated in her favour by the
revenue authorities, whereafter she sold it to defendant No.2 -
the present appellant. In FIR No.67/2011, defendant No.1 -
Shanti Devi and Sheolal were named as accused. Issues No.1 and
3, being fundamental, were decided against the plaintiff-
respondent. After recording findings on all issues, the learned trial
Court decreed the plaintiff's suit vide judgment and decree dated
05.11.2019.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
05.11.2019, the defendants preferred an appeal which came to be
dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment and
decree dated 19.08.2025, affirming the findings of fact recorded
by the learned trial Court. The learned appellate Court, after
thoroughly considering the evidence available on record, held that
the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court are correct.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.2 submitted
that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser of agricultural land
situated in Khasra No.47 of Village Udasar Chota and has not
committed any illegality; therefore, the suit ought not to have
been decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:39:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:49325] (4 of 4) [CSA-243/2025]
7. In the opinion of this Court, although the appellant-defendant
No.2 may have acted in good faith without any wrongdoing on his
part, however, the sale of undivided property of Birbalram by
defendant No.1 - Shanti Devi based on forged and fabricated
documents cannot be upheld as valid. This Court finds no
perversity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
learned Courts below. No question of law, much less any
substantial question of law, arises for adjudication by this Court in
this second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC.
8. The present second appeal, being devoid of any merit, is
hereby dismissed.
9. However, the appellant shall be at liberty to institute
appropriate proceedings for claiming adequate compensation from
respondent No.1, if so advised, in accordance with law.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
26-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:39:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
