HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 8/2022

1.

Prahlad Singh S/o Shubhkaran, R/o Shyampura Tan Nua,

Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

2.

Vinod Kumar S/o Shubhkaran, R/o Shyampura Tan Nua,

Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

----Appellants

Versus

1.

Ram Kumar S/o Shri Surjaram, R/o Shyampura Tan Nua,

Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)

2.

Sub Registrar, Jhunjhunu

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. H V Nandwana

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Judgment

18/08/2022

1.

Appellants-plaintiff have preferred this second appeal under

Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and

decree dated 18.09.2021 passed in Civil First Appeal No.11/2021

by the Court District Judge, Jhunjhunu (Raj.), affirming the

judgment and decree dated 11.09.2020 passed in Civil Suit

No.53/2019 by the Court of Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) whereby

and whereunder the civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed

dated 8.1.1981 and permanent injunction has been dismissed on

merits.

2.

Heard learned counsel for appellant & perused the impugned

judgments.

(2 of 7)

[CSA-8/2022]

3.

It appears from record that in relation to lands in question,

one sale deed dated 8.1.1981, was executed by Shubhkaran,

father of plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.1 Ram Kumar.

Shubhkaran passed away in the year 2003 and thereafter plaintiffs

have instituted the present civil suit for cancellation of that sale

deed on 22.5.2019. Plaintiffs have pleaded that sale deed dated

8.1.1981 is a forged document & signature of their father

thereupon is also forged and further the sale deed is void in view

of Section 42(a) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter

referred as ‘the act of 1955’). Plaintiffs pleaded that after death of

their father, the lands in question were mutated in their favour

and they are in possession of lands in question.

4.

Both courts below have considered plaintiffs’ case on merits

and have concurrently held that plaintiffs could not prove their

possession over the lands in question. In relation to Section 42(a)

of the act of 1955, it has been observed that such provision has

been deleted from the statue w.e.f 11.11.1992. The courts below

have also considered the aim and object of framing the provision

and for deleting the provision subsequently. In relation to the

allegation of plaintiffs that signature of their father Shubhkaran on

the sale deed in question, is forged, it has been observed that no

evidence has been produced to prove such allegations. Merely, on

account of fact that stamp papers of the sale deed, were not

purchased by the vendor Shubhkaran, the sale deed cannot be

declared as illegal and forged.

5.

Learned counsel for appellants has vehemently argued that

since the provision of Section 42(a) of the act of 1955 has been

deleted w.e.f 11.11.1992 and at the time of execution of the sale

deed in question dated 8.1.1981, this provision was in operation,

(3 of 7)

[CSA-8/2022]

therefore, the sale deed stands void being executed in violation of

such provision.

6.

Though, there is no evidence on record to show the fact that

the sale deed was executed in violation to the provision of Section

42(a) of the act of 1955, the first appellate court has further

placed reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in

case of Prem Singh Vs. Birbal [2006 (5) SCC 353], wherein it

has been held that in relation to registered documents, there is a

presumption in law that the registered document was executed in

accordance with law. The first appellate court has observed that

initially burden to prove the sale deed as void, was on plaintiffs,

who could not discharge their burden.

7.

This Court, having heard counsel for appellants, is of

considered opinion that both courts below have appreciated/re-

appreciated the grounds to challenge the sale deed dated

8.1