Dismissed

Mohana Ram v. Shiv Kumar

Rajasthan HC11 Sept 2023CSA/10/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal, the Court affirmed the dismissal of an appeal challenging the dismissal of a suit for cancellation of a sale deed. The Court upheld the finding that the suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs attained majority and became aware of the sale prior to the limitation period expiring in 1989, despite the suit being filed in 2007.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with the finding on limitation affirmed, and stay petitions were also dismissed.

Mohana Ram Vs Shiv Kumar — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:28775]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 10/2022

¶4

Mohana Ram S/o Arjun Ram, Aged About 50 Years, Village 31, Rb-1, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar

¶5

Roop Ram S/o Arjun Ram, Aged About 48 Years, Village 31, Rb-1, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Shiv Kumar S/o Mangi Lal, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar

¶9

1. Mahendra S/o Mangi Lal, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar

¶10

1. Raj Kumar S/o Mangi Lal, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar

¶11

1. Bhagirath S/o Mangi Lal, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar

¶12

Pinki D/o Mangi Lal, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar 6. Bholi D/o Mangi Lal, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar ----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr. G.J. Gupta Mr. Nes Gupta

¶14

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Judgment

¶15

11/09/2023

¶16

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar in Civil appeal No.24/2019 whereby the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Padampur, District Sriganganagar in Civil Original Suit No.4/08 has been affirmed.

¶17

Vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.09.2013, the learned trial court proceeded on to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs for cancellation of sale deed dated 15.05.1975.

[2023:RJ-JD:28775]

[CSA-10/2022]

(2 of 3)

The case of the plaintiffs was that they were minor at the time when the property in question was sold out by their father. They came to know about the said sale only after the revenue proceedings having been decided in the matter and hence preferred the suit within three years of the said fact coming to their knowledge.

¶22

The learned trial court while deciding issue no.4 pertaining to limitation concluded as under :

¶23

(i) Plaintiff Mohana Ram was a party to the revenue proceeding which culminated in the order dated 4.8.1986 (Ex.A/2A). Therefore, even if it is assumed that he became aware of the sale deed in question vide the said order, the limitation available to him could have been only till the year 1989. (ii) Even if taking into consideration the age as mentioned by the plaintiffs in the plaint, they definitely attained the age of majority in the year 1986 and 1983 respectively. Therefore, the limitation in terms of Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963 available to them was 3 years from the date of attaining majority i.e. till the year 1989.

¶24

(iii) The sale deed dated 15.5.1975 has been sought to be got cancelled vide the suit in question in the year 2007 i.e. after more than 32 years of its execution. The maximum period of limitation available to the plaintiffs, if any, was till the year 1989 whereas the suit has been preferred in the year 2007, after a delay of more than 18 years.

¶25

In view of the said findings, both the Courts below held the suit to be barred by limitation.

[2023:RJ-JD:28775]

[CSA-10/2022]

(3 of 3)

Learned counsel for the appellants have not been able to satisfy this Court as to how the finding on issue no.4 of both the Courts below is contrary to law. He could not point out any provision of law or judgment to the contrary.

¶30

In the specific opinion of this Court, the finding of both the Courts below on issue No.4 does not deserve any interference, the same being totally in consonance with law and the same is hence, affirmed.

¶31

The finding on issue No.4 having been affirmed by this Court, this Court is not required to delve into the findings on other issues.

¶32

No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed .

¶33

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.

¶34

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶35

184-SPhophaliya/KashishS/-

Mohana Ram v. Shiv Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohana Ram v. Shiv Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Managing Committee Saini Senior Secondary School Vs Roop Chand S/O Shri Devi Sahai

Managing Committee Saini Senior Secondary School Vs Banwari Lal Saini S/O Shri Heera Lal Saini

Managing Committee Saini Senior Secondary School Vs Buddha Lal Saini S/O Shri Khairati Lal

Harlal Singh Vs State

Chhota Devi Vs Lrs of Shri Manmohan and Ors.

Saroj Balana Vs Ravi Shankar Anari