Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sudesh Bansal, J.
Smt. Jimi & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Shri Kishna & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 41/2017
Decided On : 06-09-2022
CPC - Appeal against dismissal of civil suit for cancellation of registered sale deed - Section 100 - [CIVIL SUIT, SALE DEED, EVIDENCE] - The court discussed the evidence presented by the parties and found that the findings of fact recorded by both courts below were based on the appreciation/re-appreciation of evidence. The High Court held that the findings of fact did not suffer from any perversity nor misreading or non-reading of evidence and were well within the parameters of law. The second appeal was dismissed as it did not raise any substantial question of law.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a civil suit for the cancellation of a registered sale deed, claiming that the agricultural lands in question were ancestral and that the sale deed was executed without their consent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented did not support the appellants' claims and that the findings of fact recorded by both courts below were based on the appreciation/re-appreciation of evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the sale deed should be cancelled due to lack of consent from the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the findings of fact did not suffer from any perversity nor misreading or non-reading of evidence and were well within the parameters of law. The second appeal was dismissed as it did not raise any substantial question of law.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed as it did not raise any substantial question of law.
JUDGMENT
1. Appellants-plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2016 passed in Civil First Appeal No.38/2013 by the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer affirming the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.1/12 (116/93) by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Beawar whereby and whereunder their civil suit for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 11.11.1991, registered on 12.11.1991 has been dismissed on merits.
2. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the record.
3. Appellants, by way of, filing the present civil suit, have assailed the registered sale deed dated 11.11.1991 executed by plaintiff No.3-Gopi, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 Kishna, Haira and Hajari in favour of defendant No.4-Pratap Singh. On this sale deed plaintiff No.1-Smt. Jimi put her thumb impression as witness. Plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and 3 make out a case that agricultural lands in question were ancestral and plaintiff No.3-Gopi did not make his signatures, therefore, the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.4 be cancelled to the extent of the share of plaintiff Nos.1, 2 and 3.
4. Appellants have moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC placing the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 11.11.1991 on record to show some changes made in the certified copy from of the original registered sale deed in relation to age of witness Hajari and some change in presentation of the document.
5. The trial court, after recording evidence of both parties and on appreciation of evidence has observed that the agricultural lands in question was entered in the revenue record in the name of plaintiff No.3-Gopi, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 Kishan, Haira and Hajari and at that time plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 gave no objection (Exhibit-1) and thereafter they never challenged that mutation entry in the revenue record. The trial court observed that as far as plaintiff No.1-Smt. Jimi is concerned, she is a consenting party to the sale deed in question as she put her thumb impression on the registered sale deed dated 11.11.1991. As far as plaintiff No.2-Reshmi is concerned, plaintiff has nowhere disclosed that what was her age at the time of sale deed. The trial court further observed that plaintiff No.3 is one of the co-executants of the sale deed and the case make out by him that his signatures are forged is neither proved by his evidence nor finds support by the evidence of hand writing expert. With such fact finding, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit.
6. The plaintiffs preferred first appeal. The first appellate court re-considered the entire material on record and on appraisal of the evidence observed that plaintiff No.1 has put her thumb impression on the sale deed in question as witness and plaintiff No.3 is one of the co-executants of the sale deed, therefore, challenge made by them is not sustainable and with such observations, the first appellate court concurred with the findings of trial court and affirmed the judgment of trial court by dismissing the first appeal on merits by its well considered and elaborate judgment dated 28.09.2016.
7. Learned counsel for appellants, by way of application Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, has placed the certified copy of the same sale deed dated 11.11.1991 which was challenged by plaintiffs in the present suit. In the suit itself, the certified copy of the sale deed was presented by plaintiffs and now plaintiffs have sought permission to produce the another certified copy of the same sale deed at the stage of second appeal. The document of registered sale deed is already on record and in question in the present litigation, there is no purpose to allow to produce the certified copy of the same sale deed again at the stage of second appeal, even if some minor changes have been pointed out with regard to the presentation of time or the age of one another witnes
The findings of fact recorded by the lower courts were based on the appreciation/re-appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any perversity nor misreading or non-reading of evidence.
The burden of proof lies upon the person who asserts the fact, and the involvement/formation of a substantial question of law is essential to entertain a second appeal.
Sale deeds must be proved by the signature of the executant as per Section 67 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be admitted without such proof, under Section 91, rendering erroneous decisions based on ....
The main legal point established is that for a second appeal to be maintained, the finding must be shown to be perverse, and the findings must be in line with the evidence and applicable law.
Possession of property follows title, and a subsequent sale deed executed without authority is null and void.
The burden of proof in a property dispute lies on the person claiming the title, and strict compliance with the provisions of the Registration Act is necessary for the validity of a sale deed and reg....
The burden of proof regarding undue influence lies with the defendant when the plaintiff is an illiterate villager, but the defendant successfully discharged this burden, validating the sale deed.
Registered sale deeds carry a presumption of validity, placing the onus on challengers to prove otherwise, alongside procedural compliance regarding property descriptions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
