[2025:RJ-JD:49754]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16454/2025 Rameshwar S/o Hardinram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Behind Roadways Depot Nagaur, Tehsil And District Nagaur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Smt. Pappu D/o Pratapram, W/o Andaram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ramsiya Currently At Kharda, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur Rajasthan Unsound Mind Through Next Friend Father In Law Govindram S/o Ramkaran Aged About 65 Years R/o Kharda, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

2. Sub-Registrar, Nagaur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Piyush Chouhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yuvraj Sonel HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

Order

18/11/2025 The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 17.07.2025 (Annex.8) passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Nagaur (for short “the trial court”) in Civil Original Suit No.18/2025, whereby the application filed by the respondent No.1 – Smt. Pappu under Order XXXII Rule 2 CPC has been allowed.

One Govind Ram, the father-in-law of respondent No.1–

plaintiff, instituted a civil suit seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 03.02.2025 and permanent injunction against the petitioner–defendant. The suit was filed by him as next friend and guardian of the plaintiff, asserting that the plaintiff, Smt. Pappu, is a person of unsound mind and her husband is a habitual drunkard whose interests are adverse and not aligned with those of the plaintiff. It was further asserted in the plaint that the plaintiff has a property of joint khatedari bearing Khasra No.8 measuring 8.0370 Hectare at Ramsiya Patwar Halka Tausar, Tehsil and District Nagaur. Out of the said joint property, the plaintiff has 1/4th share. The said property earlier belonged to her father. It was asserted in the plaint that the plaintiff executed the sale deed dated 03.02.2025, wherein she transferred her 1/4th share in the aforesaid property to the petitioner. It was further alleged that at the time of execution of the sale deed, plaintiff – Smt. Pappu was of unsound mind. It was further asserted that the plaintiff has joint possession of the property in question as the same has not been partitioned, thus, she could not sell her share to the petitioner. Thus, the plaintiff prayed for cancellation of the sale deed and permanent injunction.

The petitioner-defendant filed the written statement denying all the assertions made in the plaint. It was asserted in the written statement that the plaintiff is a sound mind lady who has four children and lives with her husband and performs her daily obligations towards her family. It was specifically denied that the father-in-law of the plaintiff was her caretaker. Rather she resides with her husband along with her children and does not suffer from any mental infirmity. The father-in-law of the plaintiff has no right to bring the present suit. It was further asserted that no medical certificate was produced alongwith the plaint which could show/declare unsoundness of mind of Smt. Pappu. Further, the plaintiff has not been declared as unsound mind by any competent court. It was also asserted that the sale deed was executed by the plaintiff herself with her own consent wherein her husband is one of the witnesses and another witness is Chagganram and the same was registered before the Sub-registrar. Thus, it cannot be said that the said sale deed was executed against her will. Rather the suit has been filed as an afterthought to extort more money from the present petitioner. The father-in-law does not have any locus to file the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff. Thus it was prayed on behalf of the petitioner that the suit may be dismissed.

Along with the plaint, an application under Order XXXII Rule

2 CPC was filed, which was opposed by the petitioner through a detailed reply. The trial court, vide impugned order dated 17.07.2025, allowed the said application. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Reiterating t