Dismissed

Shivlal v. Piraram and Ors.

Rajasthan HC18 Jul 2023CSA/77/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the second appeal against a decree rejecting a suit for cancellation of sale deed, declaration, and permanent injunction. The court upheld the lower courts' findings that the alleged receipt was insufficient to prove payment of consideration and that the plaintiff failed to establish adverse possession.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; no interference with impugned judgment and decree.

Shivlal Vs Piraram and Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:22200]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 77/2018

¶4

Shivlal S/o Jaisa Ji, By Caste Ghanchi R/o Bagra District Jalore.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Piraram S/o Manaji, By Caste Prajapat R/o Bagra. 2. Magaram S/o Kalaji, By Caste Meghwal R/o Bhainswada, Dist. Jalore.

¶8

Kiranraj S/o Juharmal, By Caste Jain, R/o Bhainswada, Dist. Jalore.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. O.P. Mehta through VC

¶11

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶12

Order

¶13

18/07/2023

¶14

The present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2018 passed by the District Judge, Jalore in Civil Appeal No.11/2011, whereby the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned trial Court’) in Civil Original Suit No.24/2003 has been affirmed. The learned trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 28.07.2011, rejected the suit of the plaintiff for cancellation of sale deed, declaration and permanent injunction.

¶15

The case of the plaintiff was that an oral agreement to sell the plot in question was entered into between him and defendants no.2 & 3 on 17.07.1989 for a consideration of Rs.37,000/-. In pursuance to the said oral agreement, the complete consideration amount of Rs.37,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to defendants

[2023:RJ-JD:22200]

[CSA-77/2018]

(2 of 4)

no.2 & 3 on the same date and a receipt thereof was issued by defendant no.3 in his favour. The possession of the plot in question was handed over to the plaintiff on the same date and he remained in possession since then. In the month of March, 2003, when he requested the defendants to execute the sale deed in his favour, they assured that the same would be got registered within a period of 1-2 months but, defendant no.2 in connivance with defendant no.3, sold out the plot to defendant no.1 for an amount of Rs.35,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 21.04.2003. In the said circumstances, the suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 21.04.2003 and for declaration on the basis of adverse possession and for permanent injunction was preferred.

¶20

Defendants no.2 & 3, in their written statement, denied the oral agreement as averred by the plaintiff and also denied the factum of receipt of any consideration amount.

¶21

Defendant no.1, along with his written statement, preferred a counter claim for permanent injunction against the plaintiff. No reply to the counter claim as preferred by defendant no.1 was filed by the plaintiff.

¶22

On basis of the pleadings as made by the parties, 8 issues were framed by learned trial Court.

¶23

Issue no.1 as framed was as under :

¶24

“¼1½ vk;k izfroknh la- 2 o 3 us lkeqfgd :i ls fookfnr IyksV 37000@& :i;s esa oknh dks cspku fd;kA izkIr jkf”k ds cnys esa nksuksa dh lgefr ls jlhn oknh dks nh rFkk mlh oDr oknh dk dCtk bl ij djok fn;k rc ls cjkcj og blesa dkfct pyk vk jgk gS \ -------- oknh”

[2023:RJ-JD:22200]

[CSA-77/2018]

(3 of 4)

While deciding issue no.1 both the Courts below found that the receipt, alleged by the plaintiff to be of the consideration amount paid to defendants no.2 & 3, was a receipt simplicitor without any details of the parties, property or the signatories.

¶29

The receipt Exhibit-1 read as under :

¶30

“IyksV isVs ,Mokal vkt rkjh[k 17-07-89 dks izkIr fd;s ¼lsrhl gtkj½”

¶31

It is the specific finding of both the Courts below that although the alleged receipt was signed, it has not been proved as to who was the signatory. Further, the receipt does not detail out as to who paid the amount to whom and in presence of whom. Further, the receipt does not bear the signature of any witness. The receipt also does not specify any details of the property qua which the alleged consideration amount has been received. In view of the said facts, learned Courts below observed that it cannot be concluded that the receipt Exhibit-1 was issued by any of the defendants qua the plot in question. It has further been concluded that the receipt mentioned about receipt of some advance consideration amount whereas the plaintiff, in his plaint, pleaded that the complete consideration amount had been paid by him. Therefore also, it could not be concluded that the alleged receipt was qua the land in question.

¶32

It is clear on record that all other issues as framed are totally dependent/consequential to the finding on issue no.1. As observed above, both the Courts below decided issue no.1 against the plaintiff and in the specific opinion of this Court, the findings as

[2023:RJ-JD:22200]

[CSA-77/2018]

(4 of 4)

discussed above are totally in consonance with the material available on record.

¶37

So far as the plea of adverse possession raised by the plaintiff is concerned, the said issue (Issue No.3) has also been decided against the plaintiff with a specific finding that he has not placed on record any document to prove his long possession. Further, the Commissioner Report also specified defendant no.1 Peera Ram to be in possession.

¶38

In view of the above factual and concurrent findings of both the Courts below, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree.

¶39

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

¶40

The stay petition also stands disposed of.

¶41

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶42

165-vij/KashishS/-

Shivlal v. Piraram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivlal v. Piraram and Ors.

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

Firm Jagdish Asharam and Anr. Vs Jai Narayan and Anr.

M/S Bg Finance Industries Ltd. Vs M/S Raj Rice and Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Badri Prasad Vs Prasan Soni

Shambhu Singh Khetasar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gajendra Singh Vs Bhanwarlal

Mohan Lal Vs Sukhpal