Appeal against dismissal of suit for cancellation of sale deed. Court dismisses appeal due to absence of substantial question of law and concurrent findings of fact.
Dismissal of the second appeal with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 107/2022
Bharpai Devi D/o Premraj W/o Laxminarayn Khatik, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Neemrana, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar, Rajasthan At Present Residing At Kabadi Wali Gali, Behror, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gajender Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
01/07/2022
(2 of 3)
[CSA-107/2022]
Civil Suit No.20/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge, Behror, District Alwar whereby his suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 21.12.2010 and permanent injunction has been dismissed.
(3 of 3)
[CSA-107/2022]
evidence is not permissible within the scope of Section 100 of CPC, unless and until there is some illegality or perversity in findings. None of the question of law, falls within purview of substantial question of law. In order to exercise the scope of Section 100 of CPC, involvement/formulation of substantial question of law is sine qua non. Otherwise also, it is a case of concurrent findings of facts, which even if erroneous, cannot be disturbed in exercise of powers under Section 100 CPC as has been held in case of Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [(1999) 3 SCC 722] and catena of other judgments passed in case of Pakeerappa Rai Vs. Seethamma Hengsu & Ors., [(2001) 9 SCC 521], Thulasidhara & Anr. Vs. Narayanappa & Ors., [(2019) 6 SCC 409], Bholaram Vs. Ameerchand, [(1981) 2 SCC 414], Ishwar Das Jain Vs. Sohan Lal, [(2000) 1 SCC 434], State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sabal Singh & Ors., [(2019) 10 SCC 595] and C.Doddanarayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C.Jayarama Reddy and Ors. [(2020) 4 SCC 659]. Since no substantial questions of law are involved in present appeal thus, same is not liable to be entertained.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
NITIN /12
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal reflects a substantial question of law under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether concurrent findings of fact by two courts can be disturbed without illegality or perversity.
Whether the plaintiff's suit regarding cancellation of sale deed arose merely from questions of fact.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan GujarReferred¶23
Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [(1999) 3 SCC 722] · Who else cites this
Pakeerappa Rai Vs. Seethamma Hengsu & Ors.Referred¶23
Pakeerappa Rai Vs. Seethamma Hengsu & Ors., [(2001) 9 SCC 521] · Who else cites this
Thulasidhara & Anr. Vs. Narayanappa & Ors.Referred¶23
Thulasidhara & Anr. Vs. Narayanappa & Ors., [(2019) 6 SCC 409] · Who else cites this
Bholaram Vs. AmeerchandReferred¶23
Bholaram Vs. Ameerchand, [(1981) 2 SCC 414] · Who else cites this
Ishwar Das Jain Vs. Sohan LalReferred¶23
Ishwar Das Jain Vs. Sohan Lal, [(2000) 1 SCC 434] · Who else cites this
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sabal Singh & Ors.Referred¶23
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Sabal Singh & Ors., [(2019) 10 SCC 595] · Who else cites this
C.Doddanarayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C.Jayarama Reddy and Ors.Referred¶23
C.Doddanarayana Reddy and Ors. Vs. C.Jayarama Reddy and Ors. [(2020) 4 SCC 659] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bharpai Devi
Badami Devi
SUDESH BANSAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
