Marg, Barkat Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan v. Radha Devi Wd/o

Judgment

1. Radha Devi Wd/o Shri Rameshwar, R/o behind Jain Mandir, Adarsh Naggar, At present plot No- 08, Lane opposite Brahmpuri Main Post office Tonk, Tehsil & District Tonk (Rajasthan) (Since Deceased)

2. Tarachand S/o Late Rameshwar, R/o Sarovar Colony, Subhash Bazar, Tonk, Tehsil And District Tonk (Rajasthan).

3. Prem Devi D/o Late Rameshwar W/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Goyal, R/o 6-B-38, Mahavir Nagar, 111, Excise Colony, Kota Rajasthan. Dispensing.

Smt. Urmila D/o Late Shri Rameshwar W/o Shri Satyanarayan Ji Mangal, R/o Patwa Bazar, Jahajpur Road, Deoli, District Tonk Rajasthan

5. Smt. Padma D/o Late Shri Rameshwar Ji, W/o Shri Gopal, R/o Old Cinema Lane, Beawar, District Ajmer Rajasthan (Dispensing).

6. Smt. Guddi D/o Late Rameshwar W/o Shri Omprakash, R/o Om Bartan Bhandar, Near Bus Stand, Dai, District Bundi Rajasthan.

7. Arun Kumar S/o Shri Munnalal, R/o Plot No.8, Brahmpuri, Lane Opposite Main Post Office Tonk, Tehsil And District Tonk (Raj.)

8. Munnalal S/o Late Shri Rameshwar Prasad, R/o Bahir At Present Plot No.8, Brahmpuri, Lane Opposite Main Post Office, Tonk, Tehsil And District Tonk

9. Sub Registrar, Tonk (Raj.) Respondents/Defendants

10. Durga Lal Son Of Madan Lal, Resident Of Bahir Tonk, At Present 1075, Kisan Marg, Barkat Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) (Dispensing) [2025:RJ-JP:36240] (2 of 7) [CSA-132/2017]

11. Mst. Rami Devi Widow Of Madanlal, R/o Bahir Tonk, At Present 1075, Kisan Marg, Barkat Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan (Dispensing)

12. Smt. Manohari Devi D/o Shri Madanlal W/o Shri Omnarayan, R/o Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur At Present Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.) (Dispensing)

13. Smt. Lalita Devi S/o Shri Madanlal W/o Shri Ratanlal Mangal, R/o Deoli, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk (Raj.) (Dispensing) ---Performa-Respondents/Plaintiffs For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amitabh Jatav, Adv. Ms. Preeti Kumari, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. J P Goyal, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Abhi Goyal, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Swami, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Maderna, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 09/09/2025 vihykFkhZ@oknh dh vksj ls ;g f}rh; vihy vUrxZr /kkjk 100 lh- ih-lh- fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] Vksad }kjk nhokuh fu;fer vihy la[;k 12@2014 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 23-11-2016 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls oknh dh vihy [kkfjt djrs gq, fo}ku flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼d0[k0½ Vksad }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k 06@2008 esa ikfjr fu.kZ;@fMdzh fnukad 04-02-2014 dh iqf"V dh x;h] ftlds ek/;e ls vihykFkhZ@oknh dk okn ckcr~ fodz; i= dks fujLr djkus o LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ds laca/k esa [kkfjt fd;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ@oknh rFkk izR;[email protected] dh cgl lquh x;h ,oa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA [2025:RJ-JP:36240] (3 of 7) [CSA-132/2017] lqlaxr rF; ;g gS fd oknhx.k ds vuqlkj oknh o izfroknhx.k ds e/; fnukad 01-11-1979 ds vokMZ ds ek/;e ls i{kdkjksa dh laifRr dk foHkktu gks pqdk Fkk vkSj oknxzLr Hkw[kaM oknh ds gd o fgLls esa vk;k ftl ij mldk dCtk gS] ijarq blds ckotwn fnukad 08-09-1997 ds iathd`r fodz; foys[k ds ek/;e ls izfroknh la[;k&1 }kjk izfroknh la[;k&2 ds i{k esa oknh ds fgLls esa vk;s Hkw[kaM dk fodz; dj fn;k gS] bl fodz; i= dks fujLr djkus o LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vuqrks"k oknh i{k }kjk pkgk x;k Fkk] ijarq fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk oknh dk okn [kkfjt fd;k x;k rFkk fo}ku vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh mldh iqf"V dh x;hA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ@oknh dk fuosnu gS fd fnukad 01-11-1979 ds vokMZ ds ek/;e ls i{kdkjksa ds chp liafRr dk foHkktu gks pqdk Fkk rFkk i'pkrorhZ nkos esa izfroknh i{k }kjk Hkh foHkktu ds rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS] ysfdu fo}ku fopkj.k o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk miyC/k lkexzh ij lE;d :i ls fopkj fd;s fcuk gh vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gS tks fof/klEer ugha gS] ekeys esa fof/k dk lkjoku vUrxZzLr gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vihy Lohdkj dj nksuksa vihyk/khu fu.kZ; vikLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknhx.k dk fuosnu gS fd nksuksa U;k;ky;ksa dk fu.kZ; o fu"d"kZ leorhZ jgk gS] foHkktu dk dfFkr nLrkost iathd`r ugha gS] vi;kZIr eqnzkad ij gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g lk{; esa xzkg~; ugha gSA fo}ku fopkj.k o vihyh; U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dks fof/klEer gksuk crkrs gq, ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd f}rh; vihy ds ekeys esa lk{; dk iqu% fo'ys"k.k o foospu vuqKs; ugha gSA var esa vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA orZeku ekeys esa izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls vkns'k 41 fu;e 27 lhihlh dk vkosnu Hkh izLrqr gqvk gS] ftl ij cgl vafre ds le; fuLrkfjr fd;s tkus dk vkns'k gSA [2025:RJ-JP:36240] (4 of 7) [CSA-132/2017] bl vkosnu ij nksuksa i{kksa dks lquk x;k rFkk vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA oknh ca'khyky }kjk dfFkr 'kkeykr laifRr dk ,d Hkkx 'kehe [kka o vU; ds i{k esa fodz; djrs gq, orZeku ekeys dh oknxzLr laifRr dks vius i{k dh laifRr crk;k gS rFkk bl nLrkost dks vfHkys[k ij ysus dk fuosnu fd;kA nLrkost i'pkrorhZ gS] lqlaxr gS rFkk fooknjfgr gS] vr% vfHkys[k ij fy;k tkrk gS vkSj blh vuqlkj ;g vkosnu varxZr vkns'k 41 fu;e 27 lhihlh Lohdkj dj fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksZa ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA dfFkr vokMZ fnukad 01-11-1979 dk gS] rRle; Hkkjrh; eqnzkad vf/kfu;e] 1899 ds izko/kku izHkkoh Fks ftldh /kkjk 2¼15½ ds izko/kku lqlaxr gS] tks fuEukuqlkj gS%& (15) “instrument of partition” means any instrument where by co-owners of any property divide or agree to divide such property in severalty, and includes also a final order for effecting a partition passed by any Revenue-authority or any Civil Court and an award by an arbitrator directing a partition: mijksDr fof/kd izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj foHkktu ds laca/k esa dfFkr :i ls ikfjr vokMZ dk vko';d :i ls iath;u gksuk visf{kr gS tcfd dfFkr vokMZ fnukad 01-11-1997 viathd`r nLrkost gS rFkk vi;kZIr eqnzkad ij gS vkSj bl dkj.k ls fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; o vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk mijksDr vokMZ dks vLohdkj djrs gq, ;g vfHker fn;k gS fd oknxzLr laifRr dk foHkktu gksdj fookfnr Hkw[kaM oknh ds gd fgLls o vkf/kiR; esa gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrkA mijksDr fu"d"kZ o fu.kZ; miyC/k lkexzh rFkk fof/kd izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i gSA [2025:RJ-JP:36240] (5 of 7) [CSA-132/2017] nksuksa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vfHkys[k ij miyC/k rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa Lohd`fr 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 n`f"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] Lohd`fr ,oa fof/k dk lgh izdkj ls foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k dj oknhx.k dk okn fujLr fd;k gSA 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 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& [2025:RJ-JP:36240] (6 of 7) [CSA-132/2017] "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. [2025:RJ-JP:36240] (7 of 7) [CSA-132/2017] 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 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 Murari Lal Sharma /23 (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J