Dismissed

Smt. Badam Bai v. Mohammad Yunus and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2015CSA/49/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed the second appeal filed by Smt. Badam Bai assailing the concurrent decisions below. The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as the plaintiff did not admit the defendant's ownership and the defendant failed to produce title documents.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal filed by Smt. Badam Bai was dismissed with no costs.

Smt. Badam Bai Vs Mohammad Yunus and Ors. — Specific Performance | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.49/2015 Smt. Badam Bai Vs. Mohammad Yunus & Ors. Judgment dated 04/03/2015

¶2

1 of 5

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

::: J U D G M E N T :::

¶5

S. B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL No.49/2015

¶6

Smt. Badam Bai W/o Ladu Lal Nyati Vs. Mohammad Yunus S/o Fateh Mohammad Chhipa & Ors.

¶7

th Date of Judgment ::: 04 March, 2015 .

¶8

P R E S E N T

¶9

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶10

Appearance :

¶11

Mr. Ashwini Kumar Babel, for the appellant/defendant No.3.

¶12

¶13

The appellant/defendant No.3, Smt. Badam Bai W/o Sh. Ladu Lal Nyati, has preferred this second appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.3, Chittorgarh, whereby the first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant being Civil Appeal No.47/2013 - Smt. Badam Bai Vs. Mohammad Yunus & Ors., was dismissed upholding the judgment and decree dated 13.05.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chittorgarh, decreeing defendant/respondent No.1's suit, being Civil Original Suit No.34/2004 (32/2004) - Mohd. Yunus Vs.

¶14

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.49/2015 Smt. Badam Bai Vs. Mohammad Yunus & Ors.

¶15

Judgment dated 04/03/2015

¶16

2 of 5

¶17

A.V.V.N. Ltd. & Ors., for permanent injunction with respect to restraining the defendant-A.V.V.N. Ltd. from transferring the electricity connection in the name of Badami Bai.

¶18

The learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 13.05.2008 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1, Mohammed Yunus. The relevant para/s of the judgment dated 13.05.2008 reads as under: -

¶19

“व�द� क� ओर स� न��ल� क� समक पदर�-2, पदर�3 व पदर�-4 ब�जल� क� ब�ल पस� � कक�� ग�� ह� ज� व�द� म�हममद ��न!स क� न�म स� ह" और उसक� पश��' पदर�-6, पदर�-7 ब�जल� क� ब�ल पस� � कक�� ग�� ह" ज� ��द�म द�व( क� न�म स� ह"। व�द� द�र� पस� � ब�जल� क� ब�ल+ स� �ह सपष ह" कक द�क�न स- . 106 न�! कल/थ म�क1 ट च4त6डगढ क� ब�जल� क� ब�ल पत�व�द� स-. 1 व 2 द�र� व�द� क� न�म स� ह� ज�र� कक�� ज� रह� थ� ज� ��द म: पत�व�द� स- .1 व 2 द�र� पत�व�द� स- .3 ��द�म द�व( क� न�म पर ज�र� कक�� ग��। पत�व�द� स-.1 व 2 द�र� पत�व�द� स-. 3 ��द�मद�व( क� न�म पर ज�र� कक�� ग��। पत�व�द� स-. 1 व 2 न� अपन( स�क� एवजव�� द�व� म: �ह अ-कक� कक�� ह" कक पत�व�द� स-.3 ��द�म द�व( द�र� स-पतत क� सव�ममतव सम�नA दस��व�ज पस� करन� पर ब�ल ��द�म द�व( क� न�म पर ज�र� कक�� ग�� ककन��, पत�व�द� स-.1 व 2 न� न��ल� क� समक ऐस� क�ई समपतत हस��न�रण सम�नA दस��व�ज( पस� � नह�- कक�� ह" जजसस� �ह सपष ह� सक� कक तवव�दद� द�क�न स- . 106 न�! कल/थ म�क1 ट च4त6डगढ क� हस��न�रण पत�व�द� स- . 3 ��द�मद�व( क� न�म पर ह� ग�� ह�। ऐस( जसथत� म: पत�व�द� स-.1 व 2 क� �ह अचAक�र नह�- ह" कक ज� कक उक द�क�न क� ब�जल� क� ब�ल व�द� क� न�म पर ज�र� कर रह� थ� �� व�द� क� न�म पर ज�र� नह�- कर पत�व�द� स-.3 ��द�मद�व( क� न�म पर ज�र� कर� और सव�- पत�व�द� स-.3 ��द�मद�व( न� न��ल� क� समक तवव�दद� स-पतत क� हस��न�रण स�

¶20

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.49/2015 Smt. Badam Bai Vs. Mohammad Yunus & Ors.

¶21

Judgment dated 04/03/2015

¶22

3 of 5

¶23

स-�-चA� क�ई दस��व�ज पस� � नह�- कक�� ह" जजसस� �ह सपष ह� सक� कक तवव�दद� स-पतत द�क�न स-. 106 पत�व�द� स-.3 ��द�मद�व( क� सव�ममतव क� ह"। उपर�क तवव�4न क� आA�र पर व�द� उक द�न+ �नकक�+ क� पम�णण� करन� म: सफल रह� ह" अ�: उक द�न+ ह� �नकक�+ क� तनण � व�द� क� पक म: कक�� ज�� ह"।

¶24

आद�र

¶25

व�द व�द� तवरद पत�व�द�गण �� सथ��( तनष�A�ज� डPक� कक�� ज�� ह" और पत�व�द�गण क� जरर�� सथ��( तनष�A�ज� प��नद कक�� ज�� ह" कक पत�व�द� स- .1 व 2 व�द� क� तवव�दद� द�क�न स- .106 न�! कल/थ म�क1 ट , च4त6डगढ क� तवद�ल कन�करन व�द� क� न�म पर सथ�न�न�रर� कर� और भतवष� म: व�द� क� सहमत� क� ब�न� उक कन�करन पत�व�द� स-.3 �� अन� ककस( क� न�म पर हस��न�रर� नह�- कर� और पत�व�द� स-.3 क� प��नद कक�� ज�� ह" वह व�द� क� तवद�ल कन�करन क� ब�न� व�द� क� सव(कV त� क� ट�-सफर नह�- कर� और न ह� कर�व�। पकक�र अपन� अपन� ख4�� सव�- वहन कर:ग�। डPक� प4�� तन�म�न�स�र �न�� ज�व�।

¶26

Sd/(श(म�( �Vजम�A�र� रम��) अत�. मसतवल न��A(र (कतनष खणP) च4त6डगढ (र�ज.)"

¶27

The first appeal filed by the appellant/defendant No.3, Smt. Badam Devi, was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Chittorgarh, vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2014 while concurring with the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. The relevant portion of the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2014 reads as under: -

¶28

“आद�र

¶29

अ�: अप(ल�थ\ क� ओर स� पस� � अप(ल स�रह�न ह�न�

¶30

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.49/2015 Smt. Badam Bai Vs. Mohammad Yunus & Ors.

¶31

Judgment dated 04/03/2015

¶32

4 of 5

¶33

स� ख�ररज क� ज��( ह" �थ� तवद�न अA(नसथ न��ल� द�र� प�रर� आक�तप� तनण � एव- डPक� ददन�-क 13.05.2008 क� प�तष क� ज��( ह"। ख4�� अप(ल पकक�र�न अपन�-अपन� सव�वहन कर:ग�। प4�� डPक� �"��र कक�� ज�व�। तनण � क� पत� क� स�थ अA(नसथ न��ल� क� पत�वल� ल6ट�ई ज�व:।

¶34

Mr. Ashwini Kumar Babel, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.3 submits that the learned courts below have erred in deciding the Issues No.1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff/respondent No.1 while ignoring the admission of the PW.1, Mohammad Yunus, as to the title of the defendant No.3/appellant herein, therefore, the findings given by the learned courts below are vitiated. He, therefore, urged that the both the courts below have erred in granting the decree in favour of plaintiff for retaining the electricity connection.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.3, and upon perusal of the judgments and decree of the two courts below, this Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal of the appellant/defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the present second appeal deserves dismissal. Both the courts below after discussing the relevant evidence led by the parties have rightly and concurrently decreed the suit filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff, Mohd. Yunus for permanent injunction against the appellant/defendant No.3 as there

¶36

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.49/2015 Smt. Badam Bai Vs. Mohammad Yunus & Ors.

¶37

Judgment dated 04/03/2015

¶38

5 of 5

¶39

was no admission on the part of the plaintiff with respect to ownership of the defendant No.3, Smt. Badami Bai, over the suit property. The defendant No.3, Smt. Badami Bai, did not produce any document of title for the suit shop in her four. This Court does not find any ground to upset the judgments and concurrent decree passed by the two courts below.

¶40

Resultantly, the present second appeal filed by the appellant/defendant No.3, Smt. Badami Bai, assailing the concurrent judgment and decree of the courts below decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.2, is hereby dismissed. No costs. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned parties and the courts below forthwith.

¶41

(Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.

¶42

DJ/4

Smt. Badam Bai v. Mohammad Yunus and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Badam Bai v. Mohammad Yunus and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lr'S of Ram Jeewan Vs Lr'S of Gopal Krishan and Ors.

Rajendra Singh and Anr. Vs Chandraveer Singh and Ors.

Lrs.of Bhanwar Lal Vs Balu Lal

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Prabhu Lal and Ors.

Nand Kishore Vs Jeevanlal

Bhanwar Lal Vs Smt. Sushila Devi