Second appeal against dismissal of suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land and permanent injunction, filed beyond three years from knowledge of defendant's refusal. Concurrent factual findings upheld; no substantial question of law arose; appeal dismissed at admission stage.
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.
[2025:RJ-JP:36343]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 139/2025
----Appellants
Versus
| [2025:RJ-JP:36343] | (2 of 6) | [CSA-139/2025] | |
|---|---|---|---|
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. Mr. |
Aryan Verma, Adv. Ishan Misra, Adv. |
|
| For Respondent(s) | : |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Judgment / Order
09/09/2025
;g f}rh; vihy vUrxZr /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- [email protected] ¼vkxs ^^oknhx.k^^ dgk tkosxk½ }kjk fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&4] dksViqryh] t;iqj ftyk&t;iqj }kjk nhokuh izFke vihy la[;k 01@2016 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 30-09-2024 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls [email protected] dh vihy [kkfjt djrs gq, fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼d0[k0½ dksViqryh] ftyk&t;iqj }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k 142@2003 esa ikfjr fu.kZ;@fMdzh fnukad 16-04-2013 dh iqf"V dh x;h] ftlds ek/;e ls [email protected] dk okn ckcr~ fodz; vuqca/k dh fofufnZ"V vuqikyuk o LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk [kkfjt fd;k x;kA
izR;FkhZ@izfroknh i{k dh vksj ls ckotwn uksfVl rkehy dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gSA
fo}ku vf/koDrk oknhx.k dh cgl lquh x;h] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA
lqlaxr rF; ;g gS fd oknh i{k }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k okn izLrqr dj ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k fd izfroknh dze&1 us oknhx.k ds firk ds i{k esa fnukad 05-08-1991 dks oknxzLr d`f"k Hkwfe ds laca/k esa ,d fodz; vuqca/k fu"ikfnr djrs gq, izfrQy jkf'k 19]000@& :i;s izkIr dj Hkwfe dk dCtk lkSai fn;k] ysfdu ckn esa fodz;i= fu"ikfnr djus ls euk dj fn;k vkSj lEifRr esa gLr{ksi djus dk iz;kl fd;kA fodz; vuqca/k dh fofufnZ"V vuqikyuk o LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vuqrks"k izfroknh dze&1 ds
[2025:RJ-JP:36343]
[CSA-139/2025]
(3 of 6)
fo:) pkgk x;k] ijUrq ckn fopkj.k oknh dk okn fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt fd;k x;k] ftldh iqf"V fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk dh x;hA
fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh i{k dk fuosnu gS fd oknh i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fodz; vuqca/k fnukad 05-08-1991 izn'kZ&1 dk fu"iknu izekf.kr gS rFkk vuqca/k dh ikyuk dh badkjh ls rhu o"kZ dh ifjlhek vof/k esa okn izLrqr dj fn;k x;k gS] ysfdu fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk miyC/k lkexzh ij lE;d :i ls fopkj fd;s fcukgh nksuksa fcUnqvksa ij fof/k ds foijhr tkdj fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gSA nksuksa fu.kZ;ksa esa lkjoku fof/k dh =qfV gksuk crkrs gq, vikLr fd;s tkus rFkk ;g vihy Lohdkj fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd oknh i{k dh vksj ls bl ekeys esa dqy 5 xokgku dks ijhf{kr djk;k gS] xokgku dh eq[; ijh{kk rFkk izfrijh{kk ls fodz; vuqca/k izn'kZ&1 ds fu"iknu rFkk izfrQy jkf'k 19]000@& :i;s vkfn ds laca/k esa fojks/kkHkkl o folaxfr dks ns[krs gq, vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA miyC/k lkexzh ls ;g Hkh izdV gqvk gS fd Lo;a oknh i{k ds xokgku us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izn'kZ&1 fodz; vuqca/k fu"ikfnr gksus ds lkFk&lkFk ,d dPpk fodz; vuqca/k Hkh fy[kk x;k Fkk] ijUrq og vfHkys[k ij ugha gksuk oknh ds fy, fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; rFkk vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ?kkrd o izfrdwy ekuk gSA izfroknh i{k dh vksj ls Hkh nLrkost ds fu"iknu ls badkj fd;k gSA lEiw.kZ ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; rFkk fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk izn'kZ&1 nLrkost ds fu"iknu dks vizekf.kr ekuk gSA
fodz; vuqca/k dh fofufnZ"V vuqikyuk gsrq ifjlhek vf/kfu;e ds vuqPNsn&54 ds vuqlkj tgka ikyuk gsrq dksbZ fu/kkZfjr vof/k ugha gS rks badkjh ds rhu o"kZ ds vUnj okn izLrqr fd;k tk ldrk gSA orZeku ekeys esa Lo;a oknh ds xokg ih-MCyw&5 t;ey }kjk ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izfroknh dze&1 esgrkc }kjk o"kZ 1993&94 esa gh jftLVªh djokus ls badkj
[2025:RJ-JP:36343]
[CSA-139/2025]
(4 of 6)
dj fn;k Fkk] vr% Li"V gS fd o"kZ 1993&94 esa gh oknh dks tkudkjh gks pqdh Fkh rFkk ;g okn o"kZ 2003 esa izLrqr fd;k x;k] vr% fuf'pr :i ls ifjlhek vof/k ds ckgj Fkk vkSj ;gh vfHker nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa dk jgk gSA
nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vfHkys[k ij miyC/k rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa Lohdfr dh vuns[kh dh gks ;k tks rF; vfHkys[k ij miyC/k ugha gS] ml ij fopkj fd;k gks ;k lkfcr rF;ksa ds laca/k esa dksbZ xyr bUQsjsUl gks] ,slk nf"Vxr ugha gksrk gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dh iqf"V fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk dh x;h gS] bl izdkj leorhZ rF;kRed fu"d"kZ jgk gaS] blfy, mijksDr fu.kZ;ksa esa gLr{ksi fd, tkus ds dksbZ fof/klEer vk/kkj ugha gS A bl laca/k esa AIR 2008 SC 380 Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigda Laxmi and Anr. ds iSjk la[;k 13 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %&
"13. The general rule is that High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of the Courts below. But it is not an absolute rule. Some of the well recognized exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignored material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly cast the burden of proof. When we refer to 'decision based on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case, where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding."
nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us izdj.k ds rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa] Lohdfr ,oa fof/k dk lgh izdkj ls foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k dj oknhx.k dk okn fujLr fd;k gS A f}rh; vihy esa lk{; dks foLrr :i ls iqu% foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k dh Hkh vko';drk ugha gS A bl laca/k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Gurnam Singh vs. Lehna Singh 2019 7 SCC 641 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh gS fd f}rh; vihy esa rF;ksa ds fcUnq ij lk{; dk fo'ys"k.k o iqu% fo'ys"k.k vuqKs; ugha gS rFkk ewy :i ls tgka fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u vUrxZzLr gks] mu ekeyksa esa /kkjk 100 lh-ih-lh- ds vuqlkj
(5 of 6)
[2025:RJ-JP:36343]
[CSA-139/2025]
f}rh; vihy esa mPp U;k;ky; viuh {ks=kf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx dj ldrk gS] bl fu.kZ; dk lqlaxr Hkkx fuEukuqlkj gS&
"Before parting with the present judgment, we remind the High Courts that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in an appeal under Section 100 CPC, is strictly confined to the case involving substantial question of law and while deciding the second appeal under Section 100 CPC, it is not permissible for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence on record and interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below and/or the first appellate court and if the first appellate court has exercised its discretion in a judicial manner, its decision cannot be recorded as suffering from an error either of law or of procedure requiring interference in second appeal. We have noticed and even as repeatedly observed by this Court and even in Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini [Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, (2009) 5 SCC 264 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 500] , despite the catena of decisions of this Court and even the mandate under Section 100 CPC, the High Courts under Section 100 CPC are disturbing the concurrent findings of facts and/or even the findings recorded by the first appellate court, either without formulating the substantial question of law or on framing erroneous substantial question of law."
blh izdkj Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwai (Dead) by L.Rs AIR 2001 SC 965 ds iSjk la[;k&12 esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k gS %&
" 12. The phrase 'substantial question of law', as occurring in the amended Section 100 is not defined in the Code. The word substantial, as qualifying 'question of law', means — of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with — technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of 'substantial question of law' by suffixing the words “of general importance” as has been done in many other provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. In Guran Ditta v. T. Ram Ditta [AIR 1928 PC 172 : 55 IA 235] , the phrase 'substantial question of law' as it was employed in the last clause of the then existing Section 110 CPC (since omitted by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration and their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial question of general
(6 of 6)
[2025:RJ-JP:36343]
[CSA-139/2025]
importance but a substantial question of law which was involved in the case as between the parties......"
mYys[kuh; gS fd nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk oknhx.k dk okn fujLr fd, tkus ds laca/k esa vfHkfyf[kr fu"d"kZ i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh ij vk/kkfjr gSa vkSj bl laca/k esa nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa us i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr lk{; dk lgh ewY;kadu o fo'ys"k.k fd;k gSA
vr% nksuksa gh v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk mDr lEcU/k esa vfHkfyf[kr leorhZ rF;kRed fu"d"kksZa esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ =qfV vFkok izfrdwyrk ugha gksus ls o bl f}rh; vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ iz'u vFkok fof/k dk dksbZ lkjHkwr iz'u ugha gksus ls ;g f}rh; vihy xzg.kkFkZ Lrj ij gh fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS] tks ,rn~}kjk fujLr dh tkrh gSA
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J
Mittal /78
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings dismissing the suit for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 05-08-1991 were liable to interference in a second appeal under Section 100 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. v. Arigda Laxmi and Anr.Relied on¶41
AIR 2008 SC 380 Boodireddy Chandraiah and Ors. Versus Arigda Laxmi and Anr. · Who else cites this
Gurnam Singh v. Lehna SinghRelied on¶43
Gurnam Singh vs. Lehna Singh 2019 7 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwai (Dead) by L.Rs.Relied on¶49
Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwai (Dead) by L.Rs AIR 2001 SC 965 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramjilal
Bhartaram
Jaimal
Ganpat
Mahaveer
Amilal
Uma Shanker Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
