HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 480/2015

Hajari Lal S/o Shri Teja Ram, aged about 58 years, R/o Village

Charatpura, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar, Rajasthan

----Appellant/Defendant

Versus

1. Bhagirath S/o Shri Surja Ram, R/o Chatarpura, Tehsil Bansur,

District Alwar, Rajasthan

----Respondent/Plaintiff

2. Babu Lal S/o Shri Gahda Ram R/o Chatarpura Tehsil Bansur,

District Alwar, Rajasthan

3. Satya Narayan S/o Shri Mool Chand R/o Chatarpura Tehsil

Bansur, District Alwar Rajasthan

----Respondents/Defendants

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

13/02/2023

This civil second appeal is preferred against the judgement and

decree dated 17.09.2015 passed by learned Additional District Judge

Bansur District Alwar (for brevity, “the learned appellate Court”) in

Civil Appeal No.09/2013 whereby, while dismissing the appeal, the

judgement and decree dated 07.02.2013 passed by the learned Civil

Judge (Junior Division) Bansur, District Alwar (for brevity, “the

learned trial Court”) in Case No.12/2009 decreeing the suit filed by

the respondent no.1/plaintiff (for brevity, “the plaintiff”) for

permanent injunction, has been affirmed.

The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for

permanent injunction against the appellant/defendant no.3 (for

brevity, “the defendant no.3”) and the proforma respondents no.2 &

3/defendants no.1 & 2 stating therein that he was recorded khatedar

and in possession of 2/3^rd share of 1 Bigha and 19 Biswa land

comprising of Khasra No.406 Village Chatarpura, Tehsil Bansur,

(2 of 3)

[CSA-480/2015]

District Alwar. It was stated that he executed an agreement to sell

dated 22.01.1996 for a consideration of Rs.24,000/- in favour of the

defendant no.1 of his share of land whereunder its possession did

not exchange hands; but, on his failure to pay the sale consideration,

the defendant no.1 executed a deed dated 16.03.1996 cancelling the

agreement dated 22.01.1996. It was alleged that in the garb of

agreement dated 22.01.1996, the defendant no.1 was endeavouring

to sell the subject land and was trying to forcibly dispossess him in

collusion with the defendants no.2 & 3. Thus, a decree of permanent

injunction was prayed for.

Ex parte proceedings were drawn against the defendants no.1

& 2.

The defendant no.3 in his written statement submitted that he

has purchased the subject land from the defendant no.1 through an

agreement to sell dated 22.01.1996 and was in its possession. He,

therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court

framed three issues. After recording evidence of the respective

parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgement

dated 07.02.2013 which has been affirmed by the learned trial Court

vide its judgement and decree dated 17.09.2015.

Assailing the judgement and decree dated 17.09.2015, learned

counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court erred in

failing to appreciate that he acquired ownership and possession over

the subject property through an agreement to sell dated 22.01.1996

executed by the defendant no.1 in his favour. He, therefore, prays

that the civil second appeal be allowed, the decree and judgement

(3 of 3)

[CSA-480/2015]

dated 17.09.2015 be quashed and set aside and the suit filed by the

plaintiff be dismissed.

Heard. Considered.

While decreeing the suit, the learned Court has recorded a

categorical finding on the basis of material on record that on failure

of the defendant no.1 to pay the sale consideration, he executed a

deed dated 16.03.1996 whereby, the sale agreement dated

22.01.1996 was cancelled. It has also been held that since, the

defendant no.1 did not acquire any title or interest in the subject

property on the basis of the sale agreement dated 22.01.1996, he