Satya Narayan And Ors vs Sobha Lal And Ors

Appellant-plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal under Section 100 CPC to challenge judgment dated 06.05.2019, passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh (for short, 'learned lower appellate Court'), whereby learned lower appellate Court has affirmed judgment and decree dated 12.04.2012, passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Nimbaheda (for short, 'learned trial Court') dismissing their suit for perpetual injunction and cancellation of sale-deed.

The facts, in brief, are that appellant-plaintiffs laid a suit against respondents-defendants for cancellation of sale-deed and permanent injunction, inter-alia, claiming that a forged sale-deed dated 7th of July, 1980 was got registered by respondent No.1 Sobha Lal in favour of Late Ratanlal, allegedly executed by Dalchand, in respect of Gair Khatedari agricultural land measuring 5 bighas situated in Khasra No.33/3 of village Javda. The said land was allotted to Dalchand and was mutated in his name in the year 1965. Later on, after his death, the land came to be mutated in the name of legal heirs including defendant Sobha Lal as Khatedar. For challenging the sale-deed, it was averred that the land being Gair Khatedari, Dalchand himself had no right to sell it to Ratanlal and likewise Ratanlal was not having right to purchase the same yet the sale-deed was executed showing the land to be of Khatedari and therefore the land could not be mutated in favour Ratanlal or his legal heirs and the possession of the land is still with appellant-plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further averred that before death Dalchand was ill and his mental condition was not proper and it was not possible for him to execute sale-deed. It was also pointed out that defendant-respondent No.1 himself got allotted 5 bigha land in his favour in Khasra No.780/3 on which he is in possession and the plaintiffs are in possession of the land in dispute and cultivating the same and they have filed a revenue suit to get the name of Sobha Lal struck off from revenue record in respect of disputed property. It was claimed that cause of action arose to them for the first time on 01.03.2007 when they came to know about the disputed sale-deed.

After issuance of summons by learned trial Court, none appeared on behalf of respondent-defendant No.1 as such matter proceeded ex parte against him. Respondent-defendant No.2 to 6 contested the suit by filing written statement refuting the averments of plaint. Resisting the claim of plaintiff-appellants, they asserted their possession over the disputed land and averred that the sale-deed in question executed by Dal Chand is valid, who had handed over possession of the land to their ancestor Ratanlal and after his death they are in its possession. It was pleaded that the sale-deed is valid one and the appellant-plaintiffs have no right to get it cancelled. Objection about maintainability of the suit was also raised on the ground of delay and lastly prayer was made to dismiss the suit.

The learned trial Court, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, settled issues for determination. The rival parties led their evidence and also produced documentary evidence. After conclusion of the evidence, learned trial Court, upon marshaling of evidence objectively, came to the conclusion that had the sale-deed been forged or fabricated one, the plaintiffs would have certainly initiated criminal proceeding in the matter or moved the competent authority but no such document or oral evidence in that respect has been produced and accordingly found the appellants unsuccessful in proving their case. The learned trial Court found that in view of registered instrument, sans any cogent evidence to dislodge presumption about validity of the same, appellants are not entitled for the reliefs craved for and resultantly dismissed the suit. The appellants were also non-suited on the ground of delay as the suit was found to be barred by limitation.

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of learned trial Court, appellants approached learned lower appellate Court and the learned lower appellate Court, upon examining the evidence de novo, has fully concurred with the findings and conclusions of learned trial Court on the crucial issues which eventually entailed rejection of the appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the impugned judgment and also scanned record of the case.

There remains no quarrel that for maintaining second appeal an aggrieved party is required to plead and prove existence of substantial question of law. In the present matter, both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact based on sound appreciation of evidence. Although learned counsel for the appellants has made a gesture towards some of the proposed substantial questions of law, but, I am afraid, in the backdrop of available material, these are not even questions of law much less substantial questions of law. The concurrent finding of both the Courts below is pure and simple finding of fact based on sound appreciation of evidence. The Courts below have come to definite conclusion that the land in dispute was sold by Dalchand for consideration by executing a registered sale-deed. The evidence of witnesses show that at the time of execution of sale-deed Dalchand was hale and hearty and was not suffering from any illness or ever suffered any mental disorder. The Courts below also noted the fact that the suit filed after an inordinate delay of 27 years was barred by limitation. That apart, on the basis of evidence, learned Courts below arrived at the conclusion that the land in dispute was in possession of legal heirs of Ratanlal for more than 20-25 and as such thwarted the plea of appellant-plaintiffs about unawareness of execution of sale-deed by Dalchand. The inability of the appellant-plaintiffs to prove their case entailed rejection of the suit and appeal as they failed to prove the very basis of suit, the sale-deed being invalid. In the backdrop of lis involved in the matter, the findings and conclusions of learned trial Court, affirmed by learned lower appellate Court cannot be faulted and therefore the proposed substantial question of law are worth rejection.

In overall scenario, I am afraid, no question of law is either foreseeable or arising for consideration. Thus, I feel disinclined to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below.

In view thereof, sans involvement of any substantial question of law, the instant appeal fails and same is hereby rejected.