Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs Of Mohammed Ali vs The State Of Rajasthan on 29 October, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:46201]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 163/2024
1. Lrs of Mohammed Ali, S/o Shri Azimuddin Through His
Legal Representatives
1/1. Smt. Raisa Banu W/o Late Shri Mohammed Ali, Aged
About 76 Years, R/o Purani Dhanmandi, Bhilwara.
1/2. Mayinuddin S/o Late Shri Mohammed Ali, Aged About 41
Years, R/o Purani Dhanmandi, Bhilwara.
1/3. Nizamuddin S/o Late Shri Mohammed Ali, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Purani Dhanmandi, Bhilwara.
1/4. Tajuddin S/o Late Shri Mohammed Ali, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Purani Dhanmandi, Bhilwara.
1/5. Merajuddin S/o Late Shri Mohammed Ali, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Purani Dhanmandi, Bhilwara.
1/6. Miss Rajiya Banu D/o Late Shri Mohammed Ali, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o Purani Dhanmandi, Bhilwara.
1/7. Miss Sitara Banu D/o Late Shri Mohammed Ali, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Purani Dhanmandi, Bhilwara.
2. Mohammed Umar S/o Shri Azimuddin, Aged About 76
Years, R/o Purani Dhanmandi, Bhilwara.
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through District Collector,
Bhilwara.
2. Smt. Dimple W/o Shri Lalit Kumar Bapna, R/o 6/20,
Kashipuri, Bhilwara.
3. Smt. Radha W/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Mundra, R/o 56, Vakil
Colony, Bhilwara.
4. Mohammed Hussain S/o Shri Mohammed Haneef Sheikh,
R/o Near Madina Masjid, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara.
5. Sarifuddin S/o Shri Mohammed Haneef Sheikh, R/o Near
Madina Masjid, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara.
6. Abdul Hakim S/o Shri Mohammed Haneef Sheikh, R/o
Near Madina Masjid, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara.
7. Islamuddin S/o Shri Mohammed Haneef Sheikh, R/o Near
Madina Masjid, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara.
8. Abdul Salam S/o Shri Mohammed Haneef Sheikh, R/o
(Uploaded on 29/10/2025 at 01:31:33 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/10/2025 at 09:45:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46201] (2 of 8) [CFA-163/2024]
Near Madina Masjid, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara.
9. Smt. Khatun W/o Late Shri Mohammed Haneef Sheikh, R/
o Near Madina Masjid, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara.
10. Damodar S/o Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Mundra, R/o 56,
Vakil Colony, Bhilwara.
11. Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahendra Thanvi
Mr. Narendra Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
Reserved on:- 17/10/2025
Pronounced on:- 29/10/2025
1. The present first appeal has been preferred by the
appellants-plaintiffs against the impugned judgment and decree
dated 19.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge
No.03, Bhilwara, in Civil Original Suit No.177/2012 (CIS
No.1324/2012). The appeal has already been admitted by this
Court for hearing vide order dated 22.03.2024.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties on Stay Petition
No.672/2024, seeking stay of the impugned judgment and decree
dated 19.12.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge
No.03, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned trial
Court') in Civil Original Suit No.177/2012 (CIS No.1324/2012).
3. Learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs submitted that
appellant-plaintiff No.2 and the original plaintiff No.1, late
Mohammad Ali, had filed a suit before the learned trial Court
seeking a declaration that the sale deeds dated 27.09.2004 and
(Uploaded on 29/10/2025 at 01:31:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46201] (3 of 8) [CFA-163/2024]
27.01.2005 be declared null and void, along with a prayer for
permanent injunction.
4. In the plaint filed before the learned trial Court, it was stated
that the Khatedari land mentioned in paragraph No.1 of the plaint,
admeasuring 51 bighas and 16 bishwas, is situated in Village
Kumhariya, Tehsil and District Bhilwara. The aforesaid land (the
land in dispute) was purchased by late Azimuddin, who had three
sons, namely, Mohammad Haneef, Mohammad Ali, and
Mohammad Umar, i.e., plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendants No.4
to 9 (legal representatives of Mohammad Haneef).
5. Learned counsel submitted that at the time when the land in
dispute was purchased by Azimuddin, plaintiff No.2 was a minor;
therefore, it was purchased by Azimuddin in the name of his
eldest son, Mohammad Haneef. However, since Azimuddin had
purchased the land in dispute from his personal income during his
lifetime, a partition took place between the parties on 13.07.1980,
wherein 10 bighas of land situated in Araji Nos.149, 150, 151,
155, 156 & 157, and 7 bighas 5 bishwas of land situated in Khasra
No.252 came to the share of plaintiff No.1 whereas 7 Bighas 1
Bishwa land in Khasra Nos.169, 170, 171, 172, 173 and 252 came
in the share of plaintiff No.2.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that despite the partition
dated 13.07.1980, on 26.09.2004, defendants No.4 to 9, through
their power of attorney holder, defendant No.10, sold 31 bighas
and 7 bishwas of land comprising Khasra No.252 to defendant
No.3. Learned counsel contended that, in view of the aforesaid
facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs, by way of filing Civil Suit
No.177/2012 (CIS No.1324/2012) before the learned trial Court,
(Uploaded on 29/10/2025 at 01:31:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46201] (4 of 8) [CFA-163/2024]
prayed that the sale deed executed by defendants No.4 to 9
through their power of attorney holder on 27.09.2004, and the
subsequent sale of the land executed by defendant No.3 in favour
of defendant No.2 dated 27.01.2005, be declared null and void,
and that the rights of the plaintiffs be protected.
7. Learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Court, on
the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as seven
issues, including the issue of relief. Further, vide order dated
05.04.2016, after hearing the application seeking temporary
injunction, the learned trial Court directed the parties to maintain
status quo regarding the record of the land in question and also
restrained them from further transferring the suit property during
the pendency of the suit. The learned trial Court, after considering
the oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the
parties, decided all the issues against the plaintiffs. Learned
counsel emphatically submitted that Issue No.1 was very crucial,
as it pertained to the question of whether the property in question
was the self-acquired property of late Azimuddin and whether it
had been purchased benami in the name of his son, Mohammad
Haneef. He submitted that the fact relating to the partition of land
between the parties through the partition deed dated 13.07.1980
was not properly considered by the learned trial Court, though this
Hon'ble High Court, in S.B. CWP No.6307/2012, had directed that
the said document be impounded and transmitted to the Collector
(Stamps), Bhilwara, for determination of the stamp duty, and that
upon payment of the requisite stamp duty, the document could be
used for collateral purposes, except for proving title. Learned
counsel submitted that in view of the partition deed dated
(Uploaded on 29/10/2025 at 01:31:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46201] (5 of 8) [CFA-163/2024]
13.07.1980, Issue No.1 ought not to have been decided against
the plaintiffs.
8. He further submitted that Issues No.2 and 4 were also
decided against the plaintiffs in a cursory manner, without proper
appreciation of the record. It was thus prayed that during the
pendency of the present first appeal, by allowing the present stay
petition, the respondents may be directed to maintain status quo
in relation to the suit property. The plaintiffs have a strong prima
facie case; the balance of convenience lies in their favour; and, in
case the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and
decree are not stayed, the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable
injury.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent-defendant No.2 Smt. Dimple submitted that the land
in question was purchased by Mohammad Haneef from his
personal income in Samwat year 2033 (calendar year 1976). The
defendants No.4 to 9 are the legal heirs of Mohammad Haneef.
The land in dispute was entered in the revenue records in the
name of Mohammad Haneef, and after his death, the same was
mutated in favour of defendants No.4 to 9. Since defendants No.4
to 9 held legal title and revenue entries in their favour, they
executed a registered sale deed dated 27.09.2004 in favour of
defendant No.3. Subsequently, defendant No.3, on the basis of
valid title documents, executed a registered sale deed dated
27.01.2005 in favour of defendant No.2.
10. Learned counsel submitted that, based on vague and
baseless pleas of benami purchase and the alleged partition deed
dated 13.07.1980, the plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No.177/2012 (CIS
(Uploaded on 29/10/2025 at 01:31:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46201] (6 of 8) [CFA-163/2024]
No.1324/2012) seeking cancellation of the sale deeds dated
27.09.2004 and 27.01.2005. He further submitted that the
learned trial Court, while deciding the crucial Issue No.1, recorded
a finding of fact that the land was purchased in the name of
Mohammad Haneef. The plaintiffs, except for producing the
partition deed, did not place on record any document to prove that
the land was purchased by late Azimuddin in the name of
Mohammad Haneef. The learned trial Court also recorded that
Mohammad Haneef, during his lifetime, had sold part of the land,
and at that time, no objection was raised by anyone, including the
plaintiffs.
11. Learned counsel further submitted that, as a matter of fact,
plaintiff Mohammad Umar (PW-1) had filed a suit for partition
before the competent Revenue Court in the year 2006, which was
dismissed. Lastly, he submitted that since the learned trial Court,
after examining the oral and documentary evidence in detail, has
dismissed Civil Suit No.177/2012 (CIS No.1324/2012), no
interference is called for. He contended that after the death of
Mohammad Haneef, his legal heirs sold the land in dispute through
a registered sale deed dated 27.09.2004 in favour of defendant
No.3, who further sold it to defendant No.2 through a registered
sale deed dated 27.01.2005. The defendant No.2, being a bona
fide purchaser of the land, cannot be deprived of enjoying the
fruits of the property merely because, after 36 years of the land
being recorded in the name of Mohammad Haneef, the plaintiffs,
on the basis of a partition deed of the year 1980, are claiming
ownership over the land in dispute. It was thus prayed that the
instant stay application be rejected.
(Uploaded on 29/10/2025 at 01:31:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46201] (7 of 8) [CFA-163/2024]
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the impugned judgment as well as the record of the
learned trial Court, this Court finds that the land in dispute was
purchased in the name of Mohammad Haneef, and the same was
duly recorded in the revenue records in his name during the
lifetime of his father Azimuddin and plaintiffs No.1 and 2, namely
Mohammad Ali (since deceased) and Mohammad Umar.
13. After the death of Mohammad Haneef, the revenue entries
were mutated in favour of his legal heirs (defendants No.4 to 9).
It also emerges from the record that during his lifetime,
Mohammad Haneef had sold a portion of the said land, to which
none of the plaintiffs had raised any objection. Subsequently, the
legal heirs of Mohammad Haneef, through a registered sale deed
dated 27.09.2004, sold the land in dispute to defendant No.3, who
in turn sold it to defendant No.2 by a registered sale deed dated
27.01.2005.
14. The present civil suit seeking cancellation of the aforesaid
sale deeds dated 27.09.2004 and 27.01.2005 came to be filed
after a delay of about seven years, i.e., in the year 2012. It is
further noteworthy that prior to filing the said civil suit, plaintiff
No.2 Mohammad Umar had instituted a suit for partition before
the competent Revenue Court in the year 2006, which was
dismissed.
15. In the aforesaid background, this Court is of the prima facie
view that the alleged partition deed dated 13.07.1980 by itself is
insufficient to establish the plaintiffs' ownership over the disputed
land, particularly when the entire revenue record and lagaan
receipts consistently reflect the ownership of late Mohammad
(Uploaded on 29/10/2025 at 01:31:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:46201] (8 of 8) [CFA-163/2024]
Haneef. The learned trial Court, upon consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence adduced by the parties, has rightly
recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiffs have failed to prove or
demonstrate their ownership over the disputed land.
16. It is also undisputed that defendant No.2 has purchased the
land in question through a registered sale deed dated 27.01.2005
executed by defendant No.3, who had earlier purchased it from
the legal heirs of Mohammad Haneef in the year 2004.
17. In view of the foregoing, defendant No.2, being a bona fide
purchaser holding a valid legal title, cannot be deprived of
possession and enjoyment of the property, as doing so would
cause her irreparable loss and injury. The balance of convenience
also lies in her favour. No prima facie case is made out in favour of
the plaintiffs-appellants.
18. Consequently, S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 672/2024
stands dismissed.
19. List the matter for final hearing in due course.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
1-Dinesh/-
(Uploaded on 29/10/2025 at 01:31:33 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
