[2026:RJ-JP:7108]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 261/2026 Jansilal Son Of Sukhdev, Resident Of 133, Dhani Mukandpura Wali Sajiya, Village Sajiya, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus Rajendra Kumar Son Of Madanlal, Resident Of 24, Badha Devri, Sector-7, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shiv Shanker Choudhary For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

13/02/2026

1. The present civil first appeal has been filed by the defendant/appellant, assailing the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.08.2023 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Niwai, District Tonk, in Civil Suit No. 77/2021, CIS No.43/2016, titled as 'Rajendra Kumar Vs. Jansilal', whereby the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 19.05.2016 and permanent injunction was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/

respondent.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present civil first appeal are that the plaintiff/respondent filed a civil suit before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Niwai, seeking a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 19.05.2016 and a permanent injunction, which was decreed against the appellant/defendant. In the plaint, it was pleaded that the dispute pertains to an agreement for sale involving agricultural land situated in Village Sajiya, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk. The plaint narrated that the plaintiff's case is predicated on an initial agreement dated 10.11.2014, later superseded by a 'main agreement' dated 19.05.2016, for a total sale consideration of Rs.31,30,000/-, which the plaintiff/respondent claims to have paid in full through various installments and bank instruments.

3. The defendant/appellant appeared before the learned Trial Court and filed a comprehensive written statement, denying the plaint's averments and setting out his own version of facts. It was further pleaded that the defendant/appellant categorically denies the execution of the alleged agreements, contending that the documents are executed on false pretext. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff/respondent misused blank signed papers and cheques obtained under different circumstances. and the land remains in his lawful possession.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed seven issues for determination.

5. In order to support their contention, plaintiff examined PW.1- Rajendra Kumar, PW.2-Radhey Shyam, and produced Ex-1 copy of the revenue record, Ex-2 original agreement dated 10.11.2024, Ex-3 original agreement dated 04.03.2016, Ex-4 original agreement dated 19.05.2016, Ex-5 photocopy of notice, Ex-6 post office receipt, Ex-7 registered A.D-Pawati receipt, and Ex-8 Bank Statement.

6. In rebuttal, the defendants examined DW.1-Jansilal, DW.2-

Radheyshyam, DW.3-Smt. Santosh Devi.

7. After trial, the Trial Court decided Issues Nos. 1 to 6 against the appellant/defendant and accordingly dismissed the suit.

8. After considering the arguments advanced by the parties, the learned Court below, vide the impugned order dated 22.08.2023, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent.

9. Being aggrieved of which, the defendant/appellant has filed the present civil first appeal with a delay of 808 days.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a poor person, living in a village with a meagre source of income and he had no knowledge, regarding the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2023, however, when he received notice of execution dated 09.04.2024, he appeared before the learned Executing Court and thereafter, filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment and decree. He further submits that due to financial crunch and insufficient funds, the appellant was not able to pay Court fee for the present appeal. Therefore, the delay in filing the present appeal is bona fide and may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.

11. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned cou