Allowed¶56

Ram Lal v. Khanga Ram and Ors.

Rajasthan HC23 Jan 2025CFA/226/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: adverse possession; khatedar tenant; affidavit of vendor-defendant No.2; cancellation of sale deed dated 11.12.1995 (consideration Rs.50,000/-); agreement to sell dated 10.05.96; sale of 2/3 share to Rameshwar and impleading by amendment (Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC); appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC; Civil Suit No.01/96, Additional District Judge Malpura, District Tonk; Khasra Nos. 502/1/5 and 502/1/24, Village Chosla, Tehsil Malpura; possession not handed over; no criminal proceedings by plaintiff; Rajasthan Jaipur Bench; Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha; neutral citation [2025:RJ-JP:3216]; judgment dated 23.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Appeal of the defendant-appellant allowed and the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2002 passed by the trial court set aside; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

Ram Lal Vs Khanga Ram and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal of the defendant-appellant allowed and the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2002 passed by the trial court set aside; pending application(s), if any, disposed of.

¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court committed an error in cancelling the sale deed dated 11.12.95 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. +2 more

¶55

Court's answer

The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 10.04.2002 committed an error in cancelling the sale deed dated 11.12.95 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1.

¶55

Ratio / Principle

It is an admitted position that the trial court did not find the plaintiff's case proved regarding adverse possession of the disputed land.

¶55

Key takeaways

The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 10.04.2002 also committed an error in cancelling the agreement to sell dated 10.05.96.ratio¶55
Defendant No.1 had proved the sale deed dated 11.12.95 executed by defendant No.2 in his favour.ratio¶55
The trial court had merely relied on the plaintiff's written statement that possession was not handed over and concluded the defendant could not pass better title.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur ([2025:RJ-JP:3216]); S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 226/2002; NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.; judgment dated 23.01.2025. The defendant-appellant Ram Lal appealed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2002 of the Additional District Judge, Malpura in Civil Suit No.01/96 ('Khanga Ram Vs. Ram Lal & Ors.'), which cancelled the agreement to sell dated 10.05.96 and dated 11.12.95 while dismissing the plaintiff's claims of ownership by adverse possession and permanent injunction. The Court held it an admitted position that the plaintiff's adverse-possession case was not proved below; that the trial court erred in cancelling the sale deed dated 11.12.95 executed by deceased defendant No.2 Ram Chandra (who had sworn an affidavit as khatedar tenant) in favour of defendant No.1, and erred in cancelling the agreement to sell dated 10.05.96; that defendant No.1 had proved the sale deed dated 11.12.95 whereas the trial court had merely relied on the plaintiff's written statement that possession was never handed over; and observed that the plaintiff had initiated no criminal proceedings against the defendants. Accordingly the appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2002 were set aside, and pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:3216]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 226/2002

¶4

Ram Lal S/o Shri Ram Karan, Aged about 47 years, R/o Village Raghunathpura, Tehsil, Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Khanga Ram S/o Shri Mali Ram, R/o Chosla, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk(Raj.)

¶8

Ram Chandra S/o Shri Mithu Ram, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Near Barf Khana, Jaipur (Raj.) (Deceased)

¶9

Rameshwar S/o Shri Raghunath, R/o Chainpura, At present Residing in Village Chosla, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk.(Raj.)

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Ajay Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sampati Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. Mr. Bhavya Kala, Adv.
	Mr. Raghunandan Sharma, Adv.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶13

Judgment

¶14

Date of Judgment 23 /01/2025

¶15

The Civil First Appeal has been by the defendant-appellant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Malpura (District Tonk) (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.01/96 (“Khanga Ram Vs. Ram Lal & Ors.”), whereby the trial court cancelled the agreement to sell dated 10.05.96 and dated 11.12.95.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent No.1(for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 11.12.1995 executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of the

[2025:RJ-JP:3216]

[CFA-226/2002]

(2 of 6)

defendant No.1 and permanent injunction. Plaintiff in his plaint mentioned that he is in possession of the land admeasuring 10 bigha of Khasra Nos.502/1/5, land admeasuring 2 bigha 10 biswa of Khasra No.502/1/24 (total admeasuring 12 bigha 10 biswa) situated in Village Chosla, Tehsil Malpura. He was cultivating the said land for the past more than 20 years. On the basis of adverse possession, he became owner of the land in question. Plaintiff in his plaint also mentioned that the defendant No.2 with mala fide intention and in connivance with the defendant(s), executed a sale deed on 11.12.1995 for sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-. The aforesaid sale deed was executed without any transfer of possession. So, the aforesaid sale deed dated 11.12.95 is illegal and deserves to be cancelled.

¶21

During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before the trial court to the effect that after filing the suit on 10.05.1996, defendant No.1 had sold 2/3 part of land in question to Shri Rameshwar-defendant No.3. Aforesaid sale deed dated 10.05.96 be declared as illegal. On that basis, Shri Rameshwar was impleaded as defendant respondent No.3 in the suit by the trial court.

¶22

Defendant No.2-Ram Chandra filed a written statement to the effect that he had not transferred the land in question to the defendant No.1. The plaintiff had no possession over the said land. So, relief sought by the plaintiff can not be allowed. Although, before filing the written statement, defendant No.2-Ram Chandra filed an affidavit before the trial court and submitted that he was khatedar tenant of the disputed land and he had sold the said land

[2025:RJ-JP:3216]

[CFA-226/2002]

(3 of 6)

to the defendant No.1 through registered sale deed dated 11.12.1995.

¶27

Defendant No.3 filed written statement and submitted that the plaintiff had no concerned with the disputed land. Defendant No.1 as well as he himself were in possession and cultivating the disputed land.

¶28

The trial court on the pleading of the parties, framed the following issues:-

¶29

1- vk;k okni= esa of.kZr en uacj&1 of.kZr vkjkft;kr ij oknh xr 20 o’kZ ls] loar 2030 ls] izfroknh uacj&2 ds Kku esa dkfct pys vkus ds dkj.k oknh dk dCtk eq[kkyQkuk gks pqdk gS\

¶30

2- vk;k okni= ds en uacj&2 esa of.kZr vuqlkj fnukad% 11&12&95 dks ,d fn[kkoVh c;ukek fcy ,ot 50]000@&: izfroknh uacj&2 us izfroknh uacj&1 ds gd esa mi&iath;d ekyiqjk ds ;gka iathc) djk fn;k\

¶31

3- vk;k izfroknh uacj&2 us fcuk dCtk ;g cspku izfroknh uacj&1 ds i{k esa fd;k gS] tks f[kykQ dkuwu gksus ls fujLr ;ksX; gS\

¶32

4- vk;k izfrokni= ds fo”ks’k fooj.k en uacj&3 e s a vafdr vuqlkj oknh us ,d okn la0% 298@95 U;k;ky; ,l-Mh-vks- ekyiqjk esa izLrqr dj j[kk gS] vr% ;g okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\

¶33

5- vk;k izfrokni= ds fo”ks’k fooj.k ds en uacj&2 ds vuqlkj izfroknh uacj&1 us mDr vkjkft;kr fof/kor~ [kjhndj dCtk izkIr djus ds i”pkr~ ukekUrdj.k Hkjokdj pkg [kqnok;k Fkk\

¶34

6- vuqrks’k

¶35

To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and got examined Goru Singh as PW-2, Bhanwar Lal as PW-3, and to prove their case, defendant No.1 got himself examined as DW-1

[2025:RJ-JP:3216]

[CFA-226/2002]

(4 of 6)

and got examined Ram Nanda as DW-2, Hanuman as DW-3, Gopal as DW-4.

¶40

After hearing both the parties, the trial court cancelled the agreement to sell dated 10.05.96 and 11.12.95 and dismissed rest of the plaintiff’s suit with regard to adverse possession and permanent injunction.

¶41

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the trial court has not considered the plaintiff’s contention that he had possession over the disputed land on account of adverse possession and relief regarding adverse possession was not granted to him. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that before filing the written statement, defendant No.2 filed an affidavit before the trial court on 30.01.1996 mentioning that he was khatedar tenant of the land in question and he cultivated the mustard crop in partnership of defendant No.1 Ram Lal. He had sold the disputed land vide registered sale deed dated 11.12.1995 to the defendant No.1 and handed over the possession of the said land to him.

¶42

Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that during the pendency of the suit, defendant Ram Lal had sold 2/3rd part of the disputed land to defendant No.3 Rameshwar. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the trial court while passing the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2002, has not considered the affidavit filed by the defendant No.2 Ram Chandra.

¶43

Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the trial court merely on the basis of statement of defendant No.2 Ram Chandra, cancelled the agreement to sell dated 11.11.95 vide judgment and decree dated 10.04.2002, whereas defendant

[2025:RJ-JP:3216]

[CFA-226/2002]

(5 of 6)

No.2 Ram Chandra gave the contrary statement. The sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1 was very well proved. So, the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2002 regarding cancel the sale deed dated 11.12.95 is not according to law. So, the appeal filed by the defendants be allowed and the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2002 passed by the trial court be set-aside.

¶48

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that defendant No.2 Ram Chandra clearly stated that he had not handed over possession of the disputed land to defendant No.1Ram Lal. He had no possession over the disputed land. The plaintiff had possession over the disputed land. So, the judgment and decree dated 10.04.2002 passed by the trial court is according to law. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

¶49

Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 has supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that defendant No.2 Ram Chandra had sold the disputed land to defendant No.1-Ram Lal through registered sale deed dated 11.12.1995 and handed over the possession to him. He further submits that defendant No.1 Ram Lal sold 2/3rd part of the disputed land to defendant No.3-Rameshwar and the trial court allowed the amendment as sought by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 also submitted that the defendant had possession over the disputed land. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.95 without any cogent reason/evidence cancelled the sale deed dated 11.12.95. So, the

[2025:RJ-JP:3216]

[CFA-226/2002]

(6 of 6)

judgment and decree dated 10.04.2002 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the appeal filed by the defendant be allowed.

¶54

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant, learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendant No.3.

¶55

It is an admitted position that the trial court has not found the plaintiff’s case proved regarding adverse possession of the disputed land, but the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 10.04.2002 committed an error in canceling the sale deed dated 11.12.95 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant and also committed error in cancelling the agreement to sell dated 10.05.96. The trial court merely considered the written statement of the plaintiff and found that defendant had not handed over the possession. So, he can not pass better title. The defendant No.1 had proved the sale deed dated 11.12.95 which was executed by defendant No.2 in favour of him. The plaintiff had not initiated any criminal proceedings against the defendant(s). So, in my considered opinion, the appeal filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed.

¶56

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the defendant is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 10.04.2002 passed by the trial court is set-aside.

¶57

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed of.

¶58

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶59

Gourav/92

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and decree dated 10.04.2002 of the Additional District Judge, Malpura (District Tonk) in Civil Suit No.01/96 ('Khanga Ram Vs. Ram Lal & Ors.'), whereby the trial court cancelled the agreement to sell dated 10.05.96 and dated 11.12.95 and dismissed the rest of the plaintiff's suit relating to adverse possession and permanent injunction.¶15
Additional District Judge, Malpura (District Tonk) · 10.04.2002
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff Khanga Ram filed Civil Suit No.01/96 ('Khanga Ram Vs. Ram Lal & Ors.') for cancellation of the sale deed dated 11.12.1995 executed by defendant No.2 Ram Chandra in favour of defendant No.1 Ram Lal and for permanent injunction, claiming ownership of 12 bigha 10 biswa (Khasra Nos. 502/1/5 and 502/1/24, Village Chosla) by adverse possession.¶16
Prior proceeding
During pendency, plaintiff applied under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to have the sale deed dated 10.05.96 (by which defendant No.1 sold 2/3 part of the land to Rameshwar) declared illegal; Rameshwar was impleaded as defendant No.3 by the trial court.¶21
Prior proceeding
Defendant No.2 Ram Chandra filed a written statement denying that he had transferred the land to defendant No.1 and asserting plaintiff had no possession.¶22
Prior proceeding
Before filing his written statement, defendant No.2 Ram Chandra filed an affidavit stating he was khatedar tenant of the disputed land and had sold it to defendant No.1 through registered sale deed dated 11.12.1995.¶22
Prior proceeding
Defendant No.3 Rameshwar filed a written statement denying the plaintiff's connection with the land, claiming possession and cultivation by himself and defendant No.1.¶27
Prior proceeding
The trial court framed six issues (recorded in Devanagari, ¶29–34), covering adverse possession since samvat 2030/more than 20 years, the sale deed dated 11.12.95 for consideration of Rs.50,000/-, sale without delivery of possession, pendency of suit no. 298/95 in the SDOP court at Malpura, registration and possession after purchase, and other relief.¶28
Prior proceeding
Witnesses examined: plaintiff as PW-1, Goru Singh as PW-2, Bhanwar Lal as PW-3 for the plaintiff; defendant No.1 as DW-1, and Ram Nanda as DW-2, Hanuman as DW-3, Gopal as DW-4 for the defendants.¶35
Prior proceeding
After hearing both sides, the trial court cancelled the agreement to sell dated 10.05.96 and dated 11.12.95, and dismissed the rest of the plaintiff's suit concerning adverse possession and permanent injunction.¶40

Ram Lal v. Khanga Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lal v. Khanga Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badri Narayan Son of Shri Nanagram Vs Bhauri Lal Son of Shri Prabhunarain

Smt Sushila Dareya Vs Surendra Meena Andors

Girraj Paliwal Vs Smt Jaya Kumari

Noor Aalam S/O Shakoor Vs State of Rajasthan

Aarif S/O Shri Barkhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagwan Sahay S/O Late Mahadev, Grandson of Late Birda Vs Badri S/O Late Ramnath, Grandson of Late Salla