Malsisar, Dist. Jhunjhunu Rajasthan v. Hanman S/o

Shri Rajesh Kumar S/o Late Santosh Kumar Bari, aged 28

2. years, R/o Malsisar, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu 1/4/ Shri Govind S/o Late Santosh Kumar Bari, aged 23 years,

3. R/o Malsisar, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu 1/4/ Smt. Shivani W/o Manish Kumar D/o Late Santosh Kumar

4. Bari, aged 25 years, R/o Malsisar, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu 1/5. Mahendra S/o Late Shri Phoolchand, R/o Malsisar, Tehsil Malsisar, Dist. Jhunjhunu Rajasthan 1/6. Shankarlal S/o Late Shri Phoolchand, R/o Malsisar, Tehsil Malsisar, Dist. Jhunjhunu Rajasthan ----Appellants Versus

1. Hanman S/o Shri Durgaprsad, R/o Malsisar, Tehsil- Malsisar, Dist, Jhunjhunu Rajasthan Deceased Through Lrs. 1/1. Smt. Shyana Devi W/o Late Shri Hanman Prasad, R/o Malsisar, Tehsil Malsisar, Dist. Jhunjhunu Rajasthan 1/2. Omprakash S/o Late Shri Hanman, R/o Malsisar, Tehsil Malsisar, Dist. Jhunjhunu Rajasthan 1/3. Saroj D/o Late Shri Hanman Prasad W/o Mahaveer Prasad, R/o Malsisar, Tehsil Malsisar, Dist. Jhunjhunu Rajasthan [2025:RJ-JP:24828] (2 of 7) [CSA-272/2018] 1/4. Santosh Devi D/o Late Shri Hanman Prasad W/o Vishvnath, R/o Mandawa, Present R/o Abad Makan No. 83 Subha Colony, Shastri Nagar, Near Durga Tent House Jaipur Rajasthan 1/5. Ashok Kumar S/o Late Shri Hanman Prasad, R/o Malsisar, Tehsil Malsisar Tehsil Malsisar, Dist Jhunjhunu Rajasthan 1/6. Vikram S/o Late Shri Hanman Prasad, R/o Malsisar, Tehsil Malsisar, Dist. Jhunjhunu Rajasthan

2. Gajanand S/o Late Durgaprasad (Deceased) through LR's:- 2/1. Smt. Antar Devi W/o Late Shri Gajanand aged about 65 years, R/o Malsisar, Tehsil Malsisar, Dist-Jhunjhunu 2/2. Shri Manoj Kumar S/o Late Shri Gajanand aged about 35 years, R/o Malsisar, Tehsil Malsisar, Dist-Jhunjhunu 2/3. Shri Amit Kumar S/o Late Shri Gajanand aged about 22 years, R/o B-15, Amar Colony, Kamruddin Nagar, Nangloi, New Delhi 2/4. Smt. Pooja Devi W/o Manish Kumar D/o Late Shri Gajanand R/o Ward No. 24, Mohalla Badawas, Near ITI Kotputli, Jaipur

3. Anita D/o Late Shri Phoolchand,R/o Malsisar W/o Kishore Singh, R/o A-10 Bajrang Colony, Near Shubham Hospital Khatipura Road Jhotwara, Jaipur Rajasthan ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harshad Kapoor, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shiv Jangir, Adv. with Mr. Adeet Srivastava, Adv. & Mr. Manjeet Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA 07/07/2025 Order

1. This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2018 passed by the District Judge, Jhunjhunu (for short 'the first Appellate Court') in civil regular appeal No. [2025:RJ-JP:24828] (3 of 7) [CSA-272/2018] 45/2017 (39/2011) (26/2013) whereby the first Appellate Court while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Jhunjhunu in civil suit No. 37/2006 (10/2005) by which the trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for declaration and dispossession. The appellate Court had directed the plaintiff to pay court fees assuming the valuation of the suit property at Rs.10,00,000/-.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the original plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and possession against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) mentioning therein that patta of the land marked as EFGH was issued in the name of the original plaintiff's father on 22.05.1951. It was also mentioned that patta of the vacant land (small part of Guvadi) marked ABCD was issued in favour of the original plaintiff by Thikana Malsisar on

17.04.1954 on which plaintiff constructed Haveli. Original plaintiff was running a business in Rangoon and whenever he used to come Malsisar, stay in the disputed Haveli. Plaintiff purchased another land and constructed house thereon and shifted in the new house. Since then, disputed Haveli was lying vacant. So, defendants requested the original plaintiff to allow them to use it. In February, 1997 disputed Haveli and house Nos. 1 and 2 marked in the map, were handed over to the defendants. Brother of the defendants namely Ramchandra and Madanlal shifted at Delhi and Babulal expired. After some years, original plaintiff asked the defendants to vacate the disputed premises but they had not given any reply. When plaintiff's son-Santosh Kumar went to the [2025:RJ-JP:24828] (4 of 7) [CSA-272/2018] disputed property in April, 2005, then defendants started quarreling him.

3. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that original plaintiff was the eldest brother, hence his name was included in the patta dated

17.04.1954. It was also stated that entire guvadi alongwith the land including disputed land and the Haveli was in the ownership of the Durga Prasad and he executed a partition deed on

25.07.1986. On the basis of the partition, a document was executed by the brothers of the original plaintiff on 16.03.1997 on which original plaintiff put his signature as witness No. 2. It was also stated that brothers of the original plaintiff were not impleaded as a party in the suit and also stated that valuation of the disputed property is Rs. 10,00,000/-. So, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try it. So, suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.

4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- ”1- vk;k oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k bl vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd fookfnr xqokM+h o blesa cus edkukr oknh ds LokfeRo ds gSa ,oa izfronhx.k dks csn[ky dj oknh dCtk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 2- vk;k jkepUnz] enuyky] rFkk lqesjflag nkos esa vko';d i{kdkj gSa\ 3- vk;k fooknxzLr lEifRr dh dher nl yk[k :i;s gS] bl dkj.k bl U;k;ky; dks ekfy;r ds vk/kkj ij lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gS\ [2025:RJ-JP:24828] (5 of 7) [CSA-272/2018] 4- vk;k okni= fe;kn ckgj gS\ 5- vk;k okn i= ftl izdkj is'k fd;k x;k gS e; gtkZ[kpkZ [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS\ 6- vuqrks"k\ "

5. To prove his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1- Phoolchand and PW-2-Santosh Kumar and exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined DW-1 Gajanand, DW-2 Madanlal and DW-3 Hanuman and exhibited certain documents.

6. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.07.2011, dismissed the suit filed by the original plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated

18.07.2011, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.02.2018 while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2011.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had committed an error in dismissing the suit and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Both the courts had not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that trial Court as well as first appellate Court while deciding the issue No. 3 held that the valuation of the disputed property is Rs. 10,00,000/-. If valuation of the disputed property is Rs. 10,00,000/-, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to decide the other issues. So, suit filed by the original plaintiff should have been [2025:RJ-JP:24828] (6 of 7) [CSA-272/2018] returned to the plaintiffs for presentation before the Court having jurisdiction to try it. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that trial Court as well as the first appellate Court failed to appreciate that the document of partition deed dated 25.07.1986 was unregistered and unstamped. So, it was not admissible in the evidence. Memorandum of partition dated 16.03.1997 was also unregistered and unstamped. So, these documents could not be taken into consideration. Therefore, the appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiffs and submitted that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. He also submits that a concurrent finding has been given by the courts below against the plaintiffs. During the lifetime of father of the original plaintiff as well as defendants, disputed property was partitioned. On account of settlement, memorandum was also executed in which original plaintiff had also put his signature as a witness on it. So, the original plaintiff failed to prove that the disputed property was in his ownership. It is also an admitted position that the valuation of the disputed property is more than Rs. 10,00,000/-. So, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try it. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the plaintiffs being devoid of merit as no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:24828] (7 of 7) [CSA-272/2018]

10. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments.

11. It is an admitted position that plaintiffs failed to prove title of the disputed property in their name. Disputed property was in the name of the father of the original plaintiff as well as defendants. In their lifetime, father of the original plaintiff as well as defendants had partitioned the disputed property. Memorandum was executed between the parties on which original plaintiff had put his signature as a witness. It is also an admitted position that disputed property is more than of Rs. 10,00,000/-. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal filed by the plaintiffs being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

12. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Tahir/6 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J