[2025:RJ-JD:49325]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 243/2025 Bhergir S/o Chetangir Gunsai, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Purabsar Tehsil Rawatsar District Hanumangarh. ----Appellant
Versus
1. Mani Ram S/o Birbal Ram, Resident Of Munsari, Tehsil Bhadra District Hanumangarh.
2. Shanti Devi W/o Hanuman Prasad, Ex-Wife Of Birbal Ram, Resident Of Ward No. 19, Rawatsar Tehsil Rawatsar District Hanumangarh.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Sub Registrar, Pallu Tehsil Rawatsar District Hanumangarh.
4. Indra W/o Shankar Lal, D/o Birbal Ram, Resident Of Topariyan, Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh.
5. Kamla W/o Chandrabhan, D/o Birbal Ram,, Resident Of Topariyan Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh. ----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Binja Ram
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order
Reserved on: 11/11/2025
Pronounced on: 25 /11/2025
1. The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant-defendant No.2 (Bhergir) against the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh in Civil Appeal Decree No.03/2023 (46/2019), whereby the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Rawatsar, Hanumangarh in Civil Original
1
Suit No.32/2011 (163/2014), titled Maniram v. Shanti Devi & Ors., was affirmed.
2. The facts in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction and cancellation of the sale deed dated 10.10.1990. It was alleged in the suit that defendant No.1 - Shanti Devi, mother of the plaintiff, on the basis of a forged death certificate of her husband Birbalram (father of the plaintiff), got the agricultural land belonging to him mutated in her name in the revenue records. Thereafter, by preparing another forged document, she sold the said agricultural land to defendant No.2. The sale deed was registered on 10.10.1990 by the Sub-Registrar, Rawatsar.
3. Birbalram, the father of the plaintiff and husband of defendant No.1, remained alive until 09.09.2002. An FIR No.67/2011, concerning the alleged forgery by defendant No.1 came to be lodged against her, pursuant to which she was arrested and subsequently convicted by the competent criminal court. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as six issues, including the issue relating to relief. The issues framed by the learned trial Court are reproduced below for ready reference:
"1. आया वादी इस आशय की घोषणा प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है धिक धिदनांक 10.10.90 को धिनष्पाधिदत दस्तावेज बैयनामा बहक प्रधितवादी संख्या 2 एक कूटरधि$त दस्तावेज है. जो छलकपट से तैयार धिकया गया है तथा धिवधिधिवरुद्ध, अकृत, शून्य व प्रभावहीन है? -वादी
2. आया वादी इस न्यायालय से अनुषांधिगक अनुतोष के रूप में यह अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है धिक बैयनामा धिदनांक 10.10.90 के धिनरस्त होने पर राजस्व रिरकॉर्ड6 में अंधिकत प्रधिवतादी संख्या 2 का नाम कलमजन धिकया जाकर उसमें स्व० बीरबलराम के वारिरस वादी एवं प्रधितवादी संख्या 4 व 5 का नाम दज6 धिकया जावे? -वादी
3. आया वादी धिवरूद्ध प्रधितवादी संख्या 2 इस आशय की स्थायी धिनषेाज्ञा प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है धिक बैयनामा धिदनांक 10.10.90 के आार पर दज6 नामांतरण के आार पर धिकसी भी व्यक्ति= को बैयनामे में अंधिकत भूधिम का रहन बैय या धिकसी भी प्रकार से मुन्तधिकल करने से धिनषेद्ध रहे? -वादी
4. आया दावा धिमयाद बाहर है? - प्रधितवादी संख्या 2
2
5. आया प्रधितवादी 35 (ए) व 35 (बी) के तहत वादी से ख$ा6 प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है?- प्रधितवादी संख्या 2
6. अनुतोष?"
4. The learned trial Court recorded a finding of fact that defendant No.1 - Shanti Devi had left Birbalram and started living with one Hanuman Prasad. During the lifetime of Birbalram, she conspired with Upsarpanch Sheolal and procured forged and fabricated Will and death certificate of Birbalram. On the basis of these forged documents, the disputed land was mutated in her favour by the revenue authorities, whereafter she sold it to defendant No.2 - the present appellant. In FIR No.67/2011, defendant No.1 - Shanti Devi and Sheolal were named as accused. Issues No.1 and 3, being fundamental, were decided against the plaintiff- respondent. After recording findings on all issues, the learned trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit vide judgment and decree dated
05.11.2019.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.11.2019, the defendants preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.08.2025, affirming the findings of fact recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned appellate Court, after thoroughly considering the evidence available on record, held that the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court are correct.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.2 submitted that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser of agricultural land situated in Khasra No.47 of Village Udasar Chota and has not committed any illegality; therefore, the suit ought not to have been decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
3
7. In the opinion of this Court, although the appellant-defendant No.2 may have acted in good faith without any wrongdoing on his part, however, the sale of undivided property of Birbalram by defendant No.1 - Shanti Devi based on forged and fabricated documents cannot be upheld as valid. This Court finds no perversity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for adjudication by this Court in this second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC.
8. The present second appeal, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.
9. However, the appellant shall be at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings for claiming adequate compensation from respondent No.1, if so advised, in accordance with law.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
26-himanshu/-
4