Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ramswaroop Son Of Chhotu Ram Jangid vs Raghuraj Son Of Bhawani Singh Rajput on 18 November, 2025
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2025:RJ-JP:44437]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 20/2024
1. Ramswaroop Son Of Chhotu Ram Jangid, Resident Of
Sanganer District Jaipur (Instead Of The Deceased)
1/1. Ramakant Sharma Son Of Late. Shri Ramswaroop Jangid,
Resident Of Hanuman Tubewell Company Khokhawas
Near Sanganer Airport, Jaipur.
1/2. Asha Sharma Daughter Late. Ramswaroop Jangid Wife
Shri Vijay Sharma, Resident Of A-12, Press Enclave Saket
Delhi.
1/3. Sunita Sharma Daughter Late. Ramswaroop Jangid Wife
Of Shri Avesh Sharma, Resident Of Hanuman Tubewell
Company Khokhawas, Near Sanganer Airport Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Raghuraj Son Of Bhawani Singh Rajput, Resident Of
Village Farasia Tehsil Kishangarh District Ajmer.
2. Laxman Singh Son Of Bhawani Singh Rajput, Resident Of
Village Farasia Tehsil Kishangarh District Ajmer.
3. State Through Collector., R/o
4. Tehsildar, Tehsil Office Bassi, District Jaipur.
5. Deputy Inspector General Of Police (DIG) II, Mini
Secretariat, Jaipur
6. Hanuman Prasad Son Of Chhotu Ram Jangid, Resident Of
Sanganer District Jaipur.
7. Babulal Son Of Chhotu Ram Jangid, Resident Of Sanganer
District Jaipur.
8. Bhagchand Son Of Radheshyam Sharma, Resident Of B-4,
Jamuna Dairy, Ajmer Road, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.K. Moolchandani,
Mr. Pradeep Singh
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:44437] (2 of 45) [CFA-20/2024]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
Reserved On :: 06th November 2025
Pronounced On :: 18th November 2025
Reportable
This Civil First Appeal has been filed by and on behalf of legal representatives of plaintiff (died during suit). Under challenge is the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2023 passed in Civil Suit No.53/2021 (33/2003) by the Court of Additional District Judge, Bassi, Jaipur Metropolitan First, Jaipur, dismissing plaintiff's civil suit for specific performance and permanent injunction.
2. Hearing of this First Appeal has been expedited, in the light of Order dated 25.04.2025, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17673/2025 and final hearing on merits has been made, with the consent of counsel for both the parties. Counsel for appellants has submitted written statements as well.
3. The relevant facts, in brief, as culled out from the record and which are necessary to adjudicate the issue under consideration in this Appeal, are that:
(Note: Parties herein have been referred as they were called in the trial Court.) 3.1 Plaintiff led the present civil suit on 18.04.2003, seeking specific performance of an agreement to sale dated 31.03.1999, for 1/3rd part of the land in question stating inter-alia that land in question bearing Khasra no. 305/315, measuring 68 Bigha 16 Biswa situated at Village Padasoli, Tehsil Bassi, District (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (3 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] Jaipur is in Khatedari of one Shri Bhawani Singh, who has passed away just one or two years ago, before filing of the present suit. 3.2 Plaintiff averred that Bhawani Singh had executed a general power of attorney dated 04.08.1997 in favour of Defendant No. 8- Shri Bhagchand to do various acts, like to conduct proceedings before the Khudkasht Commissioner for allotment of land; to take possession and then to sell the allotted land etc. and thus, gave all his right to defendant no.8 3.3 Plaintiff averred that defendant no.8 did all proceedings and got the land allotted in the name of Bhawani Singh and obtained possession thereof, thereafter, the land was recorded in the Khatedari of Bhawani Singh.
3.4 Plaintiff averred that defendant no. 8, with consent of Bhawani Singh, entered into a deal to sell the entire land of 68 Bigha 16 Biswa to plaintiff and defendant nos. 6 & 7 jointly, against total sale consideration of Rs. 14,44,800 /- and executed an agreement to sale dated 31.03.1999.
3.5 Plaintiff further averred that Rs. 14 Lacs were paid jointly by plaintiff and defendant nos. 6 & 7 to defendant no. 8, who transferred possession of land to them and balance sale consideration of Rs. 44,800 /- was paid by him to defendant no. 8 on 05.04.1999. But since defendant nos. 6 & 7 were not agreeable to seek specific performance, hence, plaintiff alone has to file suit for specific performance in respect of 1/3 rd share of the land in question.
3.6 Plaintiff further pleaded and prayed that since Khatedar Shri Bhawani Singh has passed away and he died childless, therefore, Court itself should execute the registered sale deed of (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (4 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] 1/3rd share of land in question in favour of plaintiff, in furtherance to the agreement to sale dated 31.03.1999, executed by defendant No.8, jointly in favour of plaintiff and defendant Nos.6 &
7. 3.7 Plaintiff also averred that defendant nos. 1 & 2 have no concern with the land in question, left by Bhawani Singh, yet with an intention to disturb the possession of plaintiff and grab the land in question, disclosed themselves to be legal representatives of Bhawani Singh, hence, it was prayed that defendants No.1 & 2 be restrained by way of permanent injunction, from interrupting in peaceful use, occupation and possession of 1/3rd share by plaintiff. 3.8 The averments against defendant nos. 3 to 5 was made that they are in collusion with defendant nos. 1 & 2, hence, be restrained from entering any mutation of the land in question, in favour of defendant nos. 1 & 2, until they prove themselves to be successors of late Bhawani Singh.
3.9 Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 filed their joint written statement stating inter-alia that their father Thakur Bhawani Singh was Jagirdar of Thikana- Japda, Tehsil & District Dausa and inherited jagir from his father Jagirdar Late Sh. Ramnath Singh. Since the land of jagir was reserved by the State Government, he submitted an application on 01.09.1956 before the Sub-District Collector, Jagir- Jaipur for allotment of land. It was contended by them that after death of Thakur Bhawani Singh, his natural successors and legal representatives filed a Civil Writ Petition No.9103/2008:
Thakur Bhawani Singh (deceased) through LRs. Vs. State of Rajasthan, to ensure allotment of land, in furtherance to application dated 01.09.1956.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (5 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] It is noteworthy here that at the time of filing written statement, this writ petition was alleged to be pending, but later on, it has come on record that same was permitted to be withdrawn by the High Court, vide order dated 24.11.2016. The certified copies of writ petition and the order dated 24.11.2016, are available on record as Exhibit A-15.
3.10 Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 pleaded inter-alia that it is incorrect to state that Thakur Bhawani Singh died childless.
Indeed, their father Thakur Bhawani Singh had passed away on 07.08.1981, leaving behind two sons and three daughters, and names of all surviving successor in the family of late Bhawani Singh, were disclosed. In this context, defendant Nos. 1 & 2 took a defence that since Thakur Bhawani Singh had passed away on 07.08.1981, averments made by the plaintiff that he appointed defendant No.8 as his general power of attorney holder, by executing power of attorney dated 04.08.1997, are apparently false and fictitious. Such a registered power of attorney, allegedly executed by Bhawani Singh, was not made by their father Thakur Bhawani Singh, and if defendant No.8, having collusion with plaintiff and defendant No.6 & 7, got executed any registered power of attorney in his favour in the name of Bhawani Singh and then sold the land in question of 68 Bigha and 16 Biswa through agreement to sale dated 31.03.1999, all these documents have no nexus with the land of Thakur Bhawani Singh. Even the defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not accept the allotment of land of 68 Bigha and 16 Biswa by the Khudkasht Commissioner in favour of Thakur Bhawani Singh and disputed the entry of this land, in the revenue record in the Khatedari of Bhawani Singh.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:44437] (6 of 45) [CFA-20/2024]
3.11 According to defendant Nos.1 & 2, plaintiff and
defendant nos.6 & 7 do not have any possession over the land in question and plaintiff's suit, based on agreement to sale dated 31.03.1999, is false and frivolous, as such liable to be dismissed. 3.12 It is noteworthy here that a stay order dated 17.10.2006 was passed by the trial Court during pendency of civil suit, but the present civil suit was dismissed in default on 28.07.2015, and thereafter, mutation of land of Khasra No.305/315 measuring 68 Bigha and 16 Biswa, was transferred from Khatedar Bhawani Singh to his natural heirs on 19.10.2015. Documents of Jamabandi of Samvat 2056-59 in the name of Bhawani Singh as Khatedar of the land in question, is available on record as Exhibit 7, and mutation entered in the name of his natural successors dated 19.10.2015 is available on record as Exhibit A-3. Thereafter, out of total land of 68 Bigha and 16 Biswa, few portion of land was sold by natural heirs of Thakur Bhawani Singh, through two registered sale deeds dated 10.02.2016, one in favour of Suva Lal S/o Shivbaksh Sharma and another in favour of Sitaram Sharma S/o Chaturbhuj. Certified copies of both the sale deeds, were placed on record as Exhibits 9 & 10, but when the suit was allowed to be restored and re-registered on 01.03.2016, the application, filed by plaintiff, praying to implead subsequent purchasers as party to the present suit, was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 19.09.2016. 3.13 Defendant Nos.3, 4 & 5 submitted their joint written statement, denying the possession of plaintiff and defendants No.6 & 7 on the land in question and stated that the disputed land vests in the State Government and in possession of the State (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (7 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] Government. It was stated that total area of old Khasra No.305 was 327 bigha and 5 biswas, which came to be acquired under the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agriculture Holdings Act, 1973 and is the property of State Government. It was inter-alia stated that the land of Khasra No.305/315 has been carved out of the old Khasra No.305 and the disputed land could not be allotted to former Jagirdar, hence, the allotment of land in question to Thakur Bhawani Singh, was questioned.
3.14 In the written statement of defendants No. 3 to 5, it was alleged that allotment of land in question of Khasra No.305/315 in favour of Thakur Bhawani Singh, has been challenged by the State Government by filing a SB Civil Writ Petition No.2968/2002, which is pending. In respect of execution of documents of power of attorney, agreement to sale etc., same were categorically denied and plaintiff's suit was prayed to be dismissed.
3.15 It is noteworthy here that in the SB Civil Writ Petition No.2968/2002 filed by and on behalf of State Government, when the factum of death of Thakur Bhawani Singh came on record, his natural successors including defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were impleaded as party respondents, vide order dated 10.09.2004, but later on, this writ petition was not pursued and came to be dismissed for non-prosecution, vide order dated 08.03.2007. Copies of writ petition and the orders passed therein, were placed on record as Exhibit A5 & A6.
3.16 No written statement by defendants No.6 & 7 was filed. It appears from record that during course of trial, defendants No.6 & 7 moved an application seeking their transposition as plaintiff, (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (8 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] but their application was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 19.09.2016. Later on, defendants No.6 & 7 set ex-parte and in this first appeal as well, no-one has appeared on their behalf. 3.17 Defendant No.8 also did not file any written statement and later on, his prayer to submit written statement was rejected. It is noteworthy here that defendant No.8 appeared through counsel and supported plaintiff's case as also factum of possession of plaintiff over 1/3rd part of the land in question. 3.18 Learned trial Court, as per rival pleadings of parties, settled as many as thirteen issues, including the issue of relief. The issues are incorporated in the impugned judgment in Para No.6, however, are being reiterated, for ready reference, in English translated version hereunder:-
"(1) Whether the deceased Bhawani Singh was a lawful and valid khatedar of the land in question of Khasra No. 305/315, area 68 bigha 16 biswa, situated at village Padasoli? - Plaintiff (2) Whether Bhawani Singh appointed defendant No. 8 as his power of attorney holder, and executed a registered power of attorney in his favour? -
Plaintiff (3) Whether defendant No. 8 Lawfully executed a sale agreement, in respect of land in question on 31.03.1999, in favor of the plaintiff and defendants No. 6 & 7 and received a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/-?- Plaintiff (4) Whether defendant No. 8 delivered possession of the land in question to the plaintiff and defendants No. 6 & 7, at the time of the agreement, and since then they are in joint possession and cultivation of the disputed land? - Plaintiff (5) Whether Bhawani Singh died one and half year or two years ago, and he left no heirs, and the defendant No. 1 & 2 are falsely representing themselves as the heirs of Bhawani Singh ?- Plaintiff (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get specific performance of the agreement, in respect of land in question through defendant No. 3, the State Government, because, Bhawani Singh died without leaving the heirs?- Plaintiff (7) Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to get performance of the agreement ?- Plaintiff (8) Whether, since Bhawani Singh was a former Jagirdar, no allotment of land could be duly made to him, and any such allotment in his favour is ineffective and void? - Defendant (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (9 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] (9) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction? - Plaintiff (10) Whether the disputed land is recorded in the name of government and is under the possession and cultivation of the government? - Defendant (11) If deceased Bhawani Singh is survived by his sons, daughter, or legal heirs and successors, than what is its effect on the present suit? - Defendant (12) Whether a writ petition on behalf of the State of Rajasthan regarding the tenancy and alleged allotment of the disputed land, is pending in the Rajasthan High Court, and if so, what is its effect on the present suit? - Defendant (12A) Whether no cause of action arises in favor of the plaintiff to file this suit? - Defendant No. 1 & 2 (13) Relief?"
3.19 The trial Court granted opportunity to produce evidence and in furtherance thereof, from the side of plaintiff, five witnesses, PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-5 & PW-6, appeared and in documentary evidence, documents (Exhibits 1 to 11) were produced. From the side of defendants, five witnesses were examined as DW-1 to DW-5 and documents (Exhibit A1 to A17) were exhibited.
3.20 Learned trial Court, after hearing counsel for both the parties, dismissed the plaintiff's suit, vide judgment dated 29.09.2023, whereagainst this First Appeal has been filed by plaintiff.
4.1 Learned counsel, appearing for appellants-plaintiff submitted that the judgment of Khudkast Commissioner, Rajasthan dated 24.12.1997 (Exhibit 5) has attained finality, whereby 68 bigahs 16 biswas land in Village Padasoli, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, was directed to be allotted to Sh. Bhawani Singh, ex-jagirdar, Chhota Japda, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa u/s. 18 of the Jagir Resumption Act, 1952, in furtherance of the application dated 01.09.1956 moved by and on behalf of ex-jagirdar, Sh.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (10 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] Bawani Singh, and in furtherance thereof, land in question as Khudkast land was allotted, vide order dated 31.12.1997 (Exhibit
6) to Sh. Bawani Singh, ex-jagirdar Chhota Japda, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa. Learned counsel submitted that vide mutation No.224, land was recorded in Khudkast of Bhawani Singh S/o Ramnath R/o Chhopta Japda, District Dausa and Exhibit 7, jamabandi of Samvat 2056-59, which shows that land in question was recorded in the revenue record in the name of Bhawani Singh S/o Ramnath Singh, By Caste- Rajput, R/o Chhota Japda, Tehsil Lalsot, as Khasra No.305/315, wherein reference of mutation no.224 also finds place. Learned counsel submitted that CWP No.2968/2002, filed by and on behalf of State Government, against the allotment of Khud Kast land, to ex-jagirdar, Sh.
Bhawani Singh, later on, came to be dismissed by High Court vide order dated 08.03.2007 (Exhibits A5 & A6), hence, his contention is that on the basis of such documents, Issue No.1 deserves to be decided in favour of plaintiff, and the trial Court erred in deciding Issue No.1 against the plaintiff.
4.2 Further submission of counsel for appellants is that ex- jagirdar, Thakur Bhawani Singh, resident of Chhota Japda, was a different person than one Bhawani Singh, resident of Kishangarh, who was father of defendants no. 1 & 2. He submits that defendant no.1 & 2 are not legal heirs of ex-jagirdar, Thakur Bhawani Singh, resident of Chhota Japda and has no concern with the land in question allotted to Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-jagirdar. He submits that the trial Court erred in assuming defendants no. 1 & 2 as sons and natural heirs of Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex- jagirdar.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:44437] (11 of 45) [CFA-20/2024]
4.3 Further submission of counsel for appellants is that ex-
jagirdar Thakur Bhawani Singh, remained alive till 2001-02 and died childless, hence, land in question allotted to him stands vested in the State Government and on the strength of agreement to sale dated 31.03.1999, executed by defendant no. 8, a registered Power of Attorney holder of Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex- jagirdar, plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deed registered from the State Government through Court. Learned counsel submits that trial Court, while deciding issue Nos.2,3,4 & 7 has found execution of registered power of attorney and agreement to sale proved as also held that sale consideration was paid to defendant no. 8 and he transferred possession of land in question to plaintiff and defendant no 6 and 7. Thus, on the basis of such fact finding of the trial Court, prayer of counsel of appellants is that decree of dismissal of plaintiff's suit be set aside and, directions be issued to register the sale deed of 1/3rd share of land in question in favour of plaintiff and respondents no. 1 & 2 be restrained from interfering in possession of appellants-plaintiff or his in alternative prayer is that since defendant No.8 was denied to file written statement and to produce his evidence, hence, suit may be remanded to the trial Court, to decide afresh, after giving opportunity to produce written statement and evidence by defendant no. 8.
4.4 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of respondents-defendants No.1 & 2 argued that defendant No.8 was never appointed as power of attorney holder by Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-jagirdar, R/o Chhota Japda and registered power of attorney dated 04.08.1997, alleged to be executed in favour of defendant No.8 seems to be made by some another (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (12 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] person under the name of Bhawani Singh. Learned counsel argued that agreement to sale dated 31.03.1999, allegedly executed by defendant No.8 in favour of plaintiff and defendants No.6 & 7, is a collusive document and not binding upon the defendants No.1 & 2. Learned counsel argued that Thakur Bhawani Singh had passed away on 07.08.1981 and defendant Nos.1 & 2 are his surviving natural sons. Learned counsel argued that plaintiff and defendant Nos. 6 & 7 are three brothers and not in possession over the land in question, nor any sale consideration was paid by them, and if paid, then it was paid to defendant No.8, who happens to be their maternal uncle (Mama). Hence, plaintiff and defendants No.6, 7 & 8 acted under collusion to grab the land of Thakur Bhawani Singh. 4.5 Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, during course of verbal arguments, admitted that in furtherance to the mutation entry No.224 of land in question in favour of Thakur Bhawani Singh (Exhibit 7), after his death, mutation was sanctioned in favour of defendant Nos.1 & 2 along with other person, treating them as natural heirs of Thakur Bhawani Singh, vide Mutation Entry No.415 dated 19.10.2015 (Exhibit A3). It is noteworthy that this mutation, in favour of defendants No.1 & 2 and others was opened when the present suit was dismissed in default. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2 also admits that in their written statement, though allotment of 68 bigha and 16 biswa land by Khudkasht Commissioner to Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-jagirdar, was denied and such allotment was questioned and prayer was made to allot land in furtherance to the application dated 01.09.1956, of Thakur Bhawani Singh by way of filing a writ petition in the High Court, being SB CWP No.9103/2008, but later (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (13 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] om, this writ petition was withdrawn on 24.11.2016, apparently, in view of the allotment already made by Khudkast Commissioner. Learned counsel also does not dispute to sell the land in question to other persons, through various different registered sale deeds, two of dated 10.02.2016 and others of dated 02.02.2024 and dated 31.01.2024.
4.6 It may be noticed here that respondent No.1-defendant No.1- Raghuraj Singh has produced an additional affidavit dated 06.11.2025, before this Court, deposing himself to be natural son and legal heir of late Thakur Bhawani Singh and expressing his willingness to compensate the plaintiff/ appellants with a reasonable amount. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, having instructions, states at Bar that reasonable amount of compensation, if directed by this Court, shall be paid to plaintiff, even if the impugned decree, dismissing plaintiff's prayer of specific performance and permanent injunction, is affirmed by this Court. Additional affidavit, being in form of written undertaking, has already been taken on record.
4.7 No one has appeared on behalf of other respondents. 4.8 Heard, considered and carefully scanned the record.
5. Before considering the First Appeal on merits, it would be just and proper to deal with misc. applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by respective parties.
5.1 Applications (IA Nos.1/2024 & 2/2024) have been filed by appellants, seeking permission to place on record certified copies of various registered sale deeds dated 02.02.2024 & 31.01.2024. Through these sale deeds, property in question has been alleged to be sold to different purchasers by the persons, (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (14 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] alleging themselves to be natural successors and legal representatives of deceased Thakur Bhawani Singh.
Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 does not dispute execution of these sale deeds and does not oppose to take these sale deeds on record. The sale deeds are subsequent documents, executed after filing of this appeal and having nexus with the subject land, same are allowed to be taken on record. Accordingly, both applications stand allowed. 5.2 Application (IA No.4/2024) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has been filed by and on behalf of appellants, praying to place on record certified additional documents, certified copy of an FIR No.336/2002, statements of respondents No.1 and 2, Raghuraj and Laxman Singh, recorded in this criminal case before the Court and certified copy of judgment dated 21.02.2022, acquitting respondent-defendant No.1, Bhagchand, in the aforesaid FIR.
No reply to the application has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Documents, sought to be placed on record, are certified copies and have relevance to the subject matter of dispute involved herein, hence, the application (IA No.4/2024) is allowed and documents, enclosed therewith, are taken on record.
5.3 Application (IA No.4/2025), filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC by and on behalf of appellants, has already been not pressed by the counsel for appellants and accordingly, has been dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 26.08.2025. 5.4 Application (IA No.5/2025) has been filed by and on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2, praying to take additional (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (15 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] documents, enclosed with the application, on record within scope of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
5.5 This application has been replied and opposed by the appellants. Through this application, respondent Nos.1 & 2 sought to place on record, copy of family ration card and voter list of Bhawani Singh R/o Kishangarh. Other documents are a mortgage deed dated 17.08.1966, copy of register of a Pandit of Haridwar, copies of gift deed and sale deed, certified copy of judgment dated 24.12.1997 passed by the Khudkast Commissioner and appeal filed by respondent No.1 against judgment dated 21.02.2022, passed in connection with FIR No.336/2002, has also been sought to be produced.
5.6 As far as, documents of ration card, voter list, mortgage deed, register of a Pandit of Haridwar, gift deed and sale deed, are concerned, same are photostat copies and old documents, much prior to the filing of the suit. Firstly, photostat copies are not admissible in evidence, and secondly, no reason at all, has been assigned for not producing these documents during course of trial, whereas existence of these documents was their. The scope of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC envisages certain contours, where additional evidence can be allowed, but the scope may not be expand for granting an absolute right to a party to produce all evidence as additional documents at appellate stage. There is no averments in the application that respondent Nos.1 & 2, despite due diligence, could not produce these documents during course of trial or same were not in their knowledge. Hence, prayer to produce these documents at appellate stage is dismissed.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:44437] (16 of 45) [CFA-20/2024]
5.7 As far as document of certified copy of judgment of
Khudkast Commissioner dated 24.12.1997 is concerned, same is already available on record as Exhibit 5, hence, need not to be allowed to take on record. As far as memo of appeal against judgment dated 21.02.2022 is concerned, since copy of judgment dated 21.02.2022 has already been taken on record, hence, memo of appeal filed thereagainst by respondent No.1 is also taken on record.
5.8 Accordingly, application (IA No.5/2025) is partially allowed and disposed of.
5.9 No other application, except considered and decided hereinabove, has been brought to the notice of Court, to be pending and other misc. applications have already been decided by interim orders, passed in this appeal.
6. Coming to the merits of appeal, appellants-plaintiffs are deriving their right of specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sale dated 31.03.1999 (Exhibit 2), executed by respondent-defendant No.8- Bhagchand, alleging himself to be a registered power of attorney holder of Thakur Bhawani Singh, appointed vide Power of Attorney dated 04.08.1997 (Exhibit 1). Admittedly, Thakur Bhawani Singh had passed away prior to the institution of the present civil suit, which fact has been admitted by the plaintiff himself, in the plaint itself, hence, specific performance of that agreement against the power-of-attorney holder, respondent-defendant No. 8 and deceased Thakur Bhawani Singh, has not and can not, prayed, since there is no quarrel about the legal position that after the death of executant of Power of Attorney, Thakur Bhawani Singh, the power of attorney dated (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (17 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] 04.08.1997 (Exhibit 1), allegedly executed by him in favour of respondent-defendant No. 8, stands ceased to operate.
7. In the present suit, appellants-plaintiff have prayed the relief of specific performance against the State Government, stating inter-alia that after the death of Thakur Bhawani Singh, the land in question, bearing Khasra no. 305/315, measuring 68 Bigha 16 Biswa situated at Village Padasoli, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, vests in the State Government, because Bhawani Singh dies childless and without leaving any natural successor.
8. It is noteworthy that there is no alternative prayer of plaintiff for specific performance, in the plaint, that if defendants No.1 & 2 or any other person are found to be natural successors of late Thakur Bhawani Singh, specific performance be decreed against them. Plaintiff, in explicit words, does not admit the defendants No.1 & 2 as natural sons of late Thakur Bhawani Singh, who was ex-jagirdar of Chhota Japda. The prayer of plaintiff against them is of permanent injunction only, which may be seen from the original plaint.
9. It is further noteworthy that the specific performance of the agreement to sale dated 31.03.1999 has also not been prayed for by plaintiff in its entirety i.e. for entire 68 bigha & 16 biswa land, for which agreement to sale was executed; rather, the plaintiff's prayer for specific performance is confined only to 1/3 rd share of the land in question.
10. Plaintiff admits, in his plaint, that the agreement to sale was executed by defendant No.8, jointly, in favour of the plaintiff and his two brothers, but the plaintiff's two brothers do not agree to join the plaintiff in the present suit, so he made them as party (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (18 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] defendants Nos. 6 & 7. Nevertheless, they have not filed any separate suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 31.03.1999. Although, plaintiff's two brothers have been impleaded, in the present suit as defendant Nos. 6 & 7 (respondents No.6 & 7 herein), but despite service, they did not opt to file any written statement nor appeared in the witness box.
11. As per record, it has transpired that after filing of the present suit by the plaintiff on 18.04.2003, defendant Nos. 6 and 7 moved an application dated 08.01.2016, praying for their transposition as co-plaintiffs, but this application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 19.09.2016. The order dated 19.09.2016 was not assailed further, and thereafter defendant Nos. 6 and 7 remained ex parte in the suit and even has not appeared in the present appeal as well.
12. According to the plaintiff's case, as pleaded in the plaint, total sale consideration of Rs.14,44,800/- for 68 bigha 16 biswa land was agreed and out of that, amount of Rs.14,00,000/- was paid jointly by the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 6 and 7 to defendant No. 8, which is indicated in the agreement dated 31.03.1999, and later on, the balance sale consideration of Rs.44,800/- was paid by the plaintiff alone to defendant No. 8 on 05.04.1999 and a written note of payment of Rs.44,800/- finds place on the last page of agreement.
As far as payment of sale consideration is concerned, trial Court, while deciding Issues No.2 & 3, has concluded that payment was made to defendant No.8. Though, no other corroborative evidence has come on record of making payment of entire sale consideration in cash, yet since the recital of receipt of (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (19 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] sale consideration is mentioned in the agreement itself, and agreement is an admitted document between plaintiff and defendant No.8, hence, there is no need to discuss this issue in detail and the findings of the trial Court are endorsed.
13. The point for consideration is of transfer of possession of land in question to plaintiff and defendants No.6 & 7. The plaintiff, in para No. 4 of the plaint, pleaded that possession of the land in question was delivered by defendant No. 8, jointly to the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 6 and 7, and they all are in actual possession and cultivation of the land in question. Plaintiff stated that he have possession over 1/3rd part and rest portion of land is in possession of defendant No.6 & 7. Issue No.4 was specifically framed pertaining to possession.
Issue No.4:-
"(4) Whether defendant No. 8 delivered possession of the land in question to the plaintiff and defendants No. 6 & 7, at the time of the agreement, and since then they are in joint possession and cultivation of the disputed land?"
14. Issue of possession is an important issue and needs to be discussed. To prove possession, plaintiff has relied upon the agreement to sale only and states that possession was delivered at the time of execution of agreement on 31.03.1999. The factum of delivery of possession is also indicated in the agreement. In addition, document of consent deed dated 07.04.1999 (Exhibit-3), allegedly executed by Thakur Bhawani Singh, in conformity to the agreement to sale, too has been relied upon.
14.1 It is worthy to note here that the defendant Nos. 6 and 7, who are real brothers of the plaintiff, have not appeared in the (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (20 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] witness box to prove the fact of handing over possession of the land by defendant No. 8 to them and to the plaintiff, at the time of the agreement dated 31.03.1999. In absence of evidence of defendants No.6 & 7, their possession on the other part of land in question, cannot be believed.
14.2 Further, plaintiff's evidence is self contradictory and destructive. In plaint and chief-evidence, plaintiff (PW-1) states to deliver the possession on 31.03.1999 at the time of agreement, but in his cross-examination he stated that possession was delivered by defendant No.8, at the time when the balance sale consideration of Rs.44,800/- was paid by him to defendant No.8. As per plaint, balance sale consideration was paid by plaintiff on 05.04.1999, thus, it is well evident that possession was not delivered on the date of the agreement dated 31.03.1999, therefore, the recital of transfer of possession as mentioned, in the agreement to sell, loses its significance and the agreement cannot be taken as an absolute prove of delivery of possession. 14.3 PW-1 also stated that he installed a boring and iron fencing over the land in question, but his such oral evidence has neither been corroborated by any documentary evidence, nor by the oral evidence of his witnesses, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 produced by the plaintiff. Indeed, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 do not depose any specific evidence to prove factum of possession of the plaintiff over the 1/3rd share of the land in question. PW-6 is son of plaintiff and an interested witness.
14.4 Thus, there is no clear, cogent and convincing evidence of plaintiff to prove his possession over 1/3 rd portion of land of (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (21 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] Khasra No.305/315 and possession of defendants No.6 & 7 over rest part of the land in question.
15. No other document or evidence to show or prove the plaintiff's possession over the 1/3rd share of the land in question, except discussed hereinabove, has been produced by the plaintiff.
16. It would not be out of place to refer herein that the plaintiff, in his examination-in-chief, has exhibited a Will of Bhawani Singh dated 02.04.1999 (Exhibit-4). Firstly, it is not the plaintiff's case in the present suit that he acquired ownership and possession of the land in question on the basis of the Will of Thakur Bhawani Singh. Rather, his claim for specific performance goes contradictory, if plaintiff places reliance on the Will of Thakur Bhawani Singh. Secondly, the Will was sought to be produced on record by application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC, which was dismissed by the trial Court and Will was declined to be taken, vide order dated 19.09.2016, but later on, how plaintiff exhibited the Will as Exhibit-4 is his subsequently filed affidavit-in-chief, it is not clear. Thus, plaintiff's reliance on the Will of Thakur Bhawani Singh, neither supports his case of specific performance nor establish his possession, in any manner.
17. The findings of possession as recorded by the trial court, while deciding Issues No.2, 3, 4 & 7, are non-specific and were passed, without discussion of plaintiff's evidence, and without noticing that defendants No.6 & 7 have not appeared at all. Findings by trial Court were passed, merely on the basis of the hypothetical statements of defendant (DW-1), that since Thakur Bhawani Singh had left Chhota Japda & shifted to Kishangarh, he cannot say that plaintiff had entered in possession or not. Such (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (22 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] statement of DW-1 is neither here nor there and is non-specific as much as based on a presumption, which cannot be taken as a conclusive proof, to hold that the plaintiff has been in cultivation and possession over the 1/3rd portion of the land in question.
18. Therefore, the findings of trial Court in respect of possession cannot be subscribed by this Court, and in the opinion of this Court, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his cultivatory possession over the 1/3rd share of the land in question. Thus, Issue No.4, pertaining to possession, is hereby decided against appellants-plaintiff.
Issue No.1:-
"(1) Whether the deceased Bhawani Singh was a lawful and valid khatedar of the land in question of Khasra No. 305/315, area 68 bigha 16 biswa, situated at village Padasoli?"
19. In respect of Issue No.1, it may be noticed from the record that at least before this Court, at the stage of appeal, the allotment of the land in question bearing Khasra no. 305/315, measuring 68 Bigha 16 Biswa situated at Village Padasoli, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, made by the Khudkast Commissioner vide its judgment dated 24.12.1997 (Exhibit-5), and through allotment order dated 31.12.1997 (Exhibit-6) in favour of Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-Jagirdar, in lieu of the resumption of his jagirdari land, have emerged as a conclusive and non-controversial allotment.
20. In this regard, it is necessary to take note of the subsequent development of facts, which have come on record and are non- controverted. Before the trial Court, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not accept the judgment dated 24.12.1997 passed by the Khudkast Commissioner, directing to allot 68 Bigha 16 Biswa land (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (23 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] to ex-Jagirdar, Thakur Bhawani Singh, resident of Chhota Japda, and took a plea that they have filed one SB Civil Writ Petition No. 9103/2018: Thakur Bhawani Singh (deceased) through LRs. Vs. State of Rajasthan, thereagainst. In the written statement, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 averred that such writ petition is pending in the High Court, but later on, said writ petition has been withdrawn by them on 24.11.2016 and the order of withdrawal has been produced on record as Exhibit A-15.
21. In the written statement of defendant Nos.3, 4 & 5 as well, the challenge to such allotment, has been made by the State Government, through filing a SB CWP No.2968/2002 in the High Court, but this writ petition has been dismissed for non- prosecution way back on 08.03.2007 (Exhibits A5 & A6) and no more survive.
22. Thus it stands clear that, in view of above subsequent events, allotment in favour of ex-jagirdar, Thakur Bhawani Singh was not accepted and it was alleged that the factual matrix as was pleaded in written statements of defendants No.1 & 2 and defendants No.3 to 5, before the trial Court, do not survive, at the stage of first appeal, hence, in view of above noted subsequent facts, at least, as far as allotment of land in question to ex- jagirdar, Thakur Bhawani Singh is concerned, same can be held as a non-controversial issue on record.
23. In addition, the entry of the land in question in the revenue record in the name of Bhawani Singh S/o Ramnath Singh R/o Chhota Japda, vide Mutation Entry No. 224 (Exhibit-7), and the mentioning of his name in the Jamabandi of Samvat 2056-59, (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (24 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] have also emerged as undisputed documents before the trial Court.
24. Some other subsequent facts have also come on record that taking benefit of such an allotment of land and entry in the name of Thakur Bhawani Singh, mutation in the name of his alleged surviving natural heirs of Thakur Bhawani Singh, including defendant Nos. 1 and 2, has also been entered into in the revenue record, vide Mutation Entry No. 415 dated 19.10.2015 (Exhibit A-
3), and in furtherance thereof, the land in question has been stated to be sold by alleged natural heirs of late Thakur Bhawani Singh, through various sale deeds dated 10.02.2016, 02.02.2024 and 31.01.2024. The certified copies of sale deeds have also been placed on record, though subsequent purchasers were not allowed to be impleaded as party herein.
25. At this juncture, it is also necessary to observe that the Mutation Entry No. 415 dated 19.10.2015, was entered into during the period when the present civil suit was dismissed in default on 28.07.2015 and restored back on 01.03.2016. The two sale deeds dated 10.02.2016 (Exhibits- 9 & 10) were also executed during this period, and other sale deeds dated 31.01.2024 and 02.02.2024, have been executed, after dismissal of the suit on merits vide judgment impugned, but during course of the present first appeal.
Be that as it may, this is not an issue before the Court as to whether defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are surviving natural sons or successors of late Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-Jagirdar, resident of Chhota Japda or who all are the surviving natural heirs of Thakur Bhawani Singh and this Court is not required to adjudicate such (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (25 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] issues, hence refrains itself from rendering any finding about the legality and validity of Mutation Entry No. 415, as also about the genuineness of subsequent sale deeds dated 10.02.2016, 02.02.2024 and 31.01.2024, etc., executed in respect of the land in question, after filing of the present suit.
26. Be that as it may, this Court finds that in view of occurrence of such subsequent events, the challenge to the judgment dated 24.12.1997 passed by the Khudkast Commissioner directing to allot the land in question in favour of ex-Jagirdar, Thakur Bhawani Singh, does not survive any more, and the stand as taken in the written statement of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, has drastically becomes changed. Similarly, the very basis to question such allotment by State Government, too do not exist.
27. Admitted and undisputed subsequent facts, which have come on record as non-controversial, can certainly be taken into account by the First Appellate Court to decide the issue of controvers. Therefore, in view of above noted subsequent facts, the Issue No.1 now deserves to be decided affirmatively and the facts and situation whereunder this issue was decided by the trial Court, does not survive any more. Hence, taking note of the subsequent development of facts and change of stand of defendants No.1 & 2 (respondents No.1 & 2 herein) and losing the very basis of plea taken by defendants No.3 to 5 (respondents No.3 to 5 herein), Issue No.1 virtually has rendered as a non-contentious issue and accordingly, Issue No.1 is hereby decided in the manner that it stands proved that Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-Jagirdar of Chhota Japda, to whom the land in question was allotted by the Khudkast Commissioner, was a recorded Khudkast Khatedar, of land of (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (26 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] Khasra no. 305/315, measuring 68 Bigha 16 Biswa situated at Village Padasoli, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur. Issue Nos.5 & 11:-
"(5) Whether Bhawani Singh died one and half year or two years ago, and he left no heirs, and the defendant No. 1 & 2 are falsely representing themselves as the heirs of Bhawani Singh? (11) If deceased Bhawani Singh is survived by his sons, daughter, or legal heirs and successors, than what is its effect on the present suit?"
28. At the outset, it is noteworthy that there is no dispute at all about the fact that Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-Jagirdar, is no more and has passed away, before filing of the present civil suit. Dispute is only about his date of death and whether he died childless and without leaving any natural successors or not?
29. Though an incidental issue also crops-up as to who all are the legal heirs/ successors of Thakur Bhawani Singh, because according to the plaintiff, Thakur Bhawani Singh died childless and without leaving any natural successor, whereas according to defendant Nos. 1 and 2, they are the natural sons of Thakur Bhawani Singh and they have disclosed name of surviving natural successors of Thakur Bhawani Singh.
30. But this Court, on the basis of pleadings and prayer made by the plaintiff in the plaint, finds that the principal issue requiring adjudication in the present suit is as to whether Thakur Bhawani Singh died childless and without leaving any natural successor, and therefore, the land in question came to be vested in the State Government? Hence, consequently, as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of 1/3 rd share of land in question against the State Government?
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (27 of 45) [CFA-20/2024]
31. Though in the written statement of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, they have denied the fact that Thakur Bhawani Singh died childless and asserted that they are his natural sons and surviving successors as also disclosed name of his other surviving natural heirs, but the plaintiff does not admit defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as legal heirs/ natural sons of late Thakur Bhawani Singh, nor there is any prayer of the plaintiff in the plaint, even in the alternative form, that if defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are declared to be natural sons and surviving successors of late Thakur Bhawani Singh, the decree of specific performance should be passed against them. The prayer of the plaintiff in the plaint, is confined to seeking relief of specific performance, only against the State Government or through the State Government. There is no counter prayer or counter-claim of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as well, seeking to declare them as legal heirs/ surviving natural sons/ successors of late Thakur Bhawani Singh, nor defendants No.1 & 2 have prayed any declaration, from the Court, for declaring that the land in question survives upon them, after death of Thakur Bhawani Singh.
31. It is not required and necessary for this Court to go into the issue as to defendants No.1 & 2 or who all are the legal heirs/ natural successors of deceased Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-jagirdar, Chhota Japda. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court erred in entering into such controversy and such a controversy is not the subject matter in issue herein in this appeal, nor such the issue has nexus with the prayer of the plaintiff in the present suit, since plaintiff does not make any prayer of specific performance against defendants No.1 & 2 or (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (28 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] against legal heirs/ successors of late Thakur Bhawani Singh, if any. In clear words, the rights of defendants No.1 & 2, in the lands in question, are not to be decided by this Court, in this appeal.
32. Ordinarily, a civil suit should be tried on the issues raised by the parties, but in view of Order 7 Rule 7 CPC, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant relief is confined to the prayer made therein. No doubt, the Civil Court, in an appropriate case, may mold the relief if circumstances so warrant, but may not and should not grant a relief, which has specifically not been prayed for. In other words, the Civil Court is required to exercise its jurisdiction to consider the issues involved in the civil suit with context to the relief prayed for therein. This has to be kept in mind by the Court, after taking into consideration the nature of civil suit that what ultimate relief can be granted to the parties. Here, it would be appropriate and necessary to keep in mind that the scope and ambit of jurisdiction of the High Court in determining issues in appeal filed in terms of Section 96 CPC (which would be in continuation of the original suit) is different than the jurisdiction of judicial review exercised by the High Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. While adjudicating a lis in exercise of power of judicial review under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court exercises wider jurisdiction, whereas while exercising jurisdiction as an appellate Court under Section 96 CPC, the High Court is also bound to act within four corners of statutory provisions of law. The Court has to keep confine itself to the pleadings, prayer of the parties and obviously may take into consideration the subsequent development of facts, to mold the relief in appropriate cases.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (29 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] Therefore, issues are also required to be adjudicated, taking into consideration the nature of civil suit, scope of pleadings and prayer made therein, not the other irrelevant issues.
33. To buttress such fine distinction and proposition of law, in respect of exercise of jurisdiction by High Court as appellate Court under Section 96 CPC and as writ Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, reference of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Santosh Kumari [(2007) 8 SCC 600] would be suffice, wherein their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 23, held and observed as under:-
"23. Scope and ambit of jurisdiction of the High Court in determining an issue in an appeal filed in terms of Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (which would be in continuation of the original suit) and exercising the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would be different. While in the former, the court, subject to the procedural flexibility has laid down under the statute is bound to act within the four corners thereof, in adjudicating a lis in exercise of its power of judicial review, the High Court exercises a wider jurisdiction. No doubt, the court in an appropriate case, even in a civil suit may mould a relief but its jurisdiction in this behalf would be confined to Order VII, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure."
34. In view of above discussion and proposition of law, learned trial Court erred in entertaining the adjudication of the controversy, as to whether defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are surviving natural sons/ successors of late Thakur Bhawani Singh, resident of Chhota Japda or not? The trial Court proceeded to deal with the issue, taking into consideration the existence of two persons in the name of Bhawani Singh -- one is Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex- Jagirdar, resident of Chhota Japda, and another is Bhawani Singh, resident of Kishangarh. Though, the trial Court has not reached to any conclusive findings, to hold that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (30 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] natural sons of Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-Jagirdar, resident of Chhota Japda, but in the opinion of this Court, looking to the nature and scope of pleadings of the present suit and limited prayer made therein, there is no need to enter into such a controversy, nor adjudication of such controversy is necessary and required, in context to the prayer of the plaintiff made in the plaint.
35. At the cost of repetition, it is hereby observed that there is no counter-claim or prayer of declaration, or any other prayer from the side of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, in respect of land in question, in the present suit. This Court had already reached to a conclusion that it is not required at all, in the present lis, to consider and decide the issue as to who all are the sons and daughters or natural successors or legal heirs of deceased Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-Jagirdar or whether defendants No.1 & 2 have or not any property rights in the land in question. The findings of the trial Court in this respect, if any, are without jurisdiction and for the above reasons, Issue Nos. 5 & 11 have virtually become redundant and insignificant to the present lis, which have no nexus at all with the prayer of plaintiff made in the plaint, hence, both issues are hereby decided accordingly. Rest relevant consideration shall be discussed in Issue No.6. Issue No.6:-
"(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get specific performance of the agreement, in respect of land in question through defendant No. 3, the State Government, because, Bhawani Singh died without leaving the heirs?"
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (31 of 45) [CFA-20/2024]
36. Coming back to the subject matter in issue, requiring consideration in the present suit, or in this first appeal, that whether the appellants-plaintiff are entitled for a decree of specific performance against the State Government and through the State Government, in respect of 1/3rd share of the land in question of Khasra No. 305/315, measuring 68 Bigha 16 Biswa?
37. Indeed, there are two prayers of the appellants-plaintiff, (i) the principal prayer is of specific performance and, (ii) the consequential prayer is of permanent injunction.
38. The prayer of appellants-plaintiff for the specific performance is only against the State Government and not against any natural successor or legal heirs of ex-Jagirdar Thakur Bhawani Singh. Even there is no alternative prayer in the plaint that in case, late Thakur Bhawani Singh is found to be survived by any of his natural heir/ natural successor, decree of specific performance be passed against them, therefore, this Court is not required to enter in that area. This Court has no hesitation to hold that taking into consideration the specific prayer of the appellants-plaintiff, made in the plaint, and in the light of Order 7 Rule 7 CPC, the Court is not required to consider or mold the prayer of specific performance against any of the natural successors or legal heirs of ex-Jagirdar Thakur Bhawani Singh (now deceased), even if they survive. Hence, it is not required at all in the present lis to delve into the issue as to who all are the natural successors/ surviving legal heirs of late Thakur Bhawani Singh or whether defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are his natural sons or not? Or do they inherent any property right in the land in question? The issue which requires consideration, remain within compass that whether Thakur (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (32 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] Bhawani Singh, ex-Jagirdar, died childless, without leaving any natural successor? And the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance against the State Government?
39. As far as the consequential prayer of permanent injunction of the appellants-plaintiff is concerned, the same is fundamentally based on assertion to have cultivation and possession of 1/3 rd share of the land in question. The prayer of permanent injunction, has been made against defendant Nos. 1 and 2, seeking to restrain them from interfering in the peaceful use and possession of the land in question by the plaintiff. Other part of prayer of permanent injunction, made in the plaint virtually has rendered infructuous, in the light of subsequent events of entering Mutation Entry No.415 dated 19.10.2015 in the name of defendants No.1 & 2 (Exhibit A3) and other persons.
40. The appellants-plaintiff do not accept defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) as sons/ natural successors/ legal heirs of late Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-Jagirdar. Therefore, even to consider the prayer of permanent injunction against them, the status of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as surviving sons and successors of Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-Jagirdar is not required to be gone into.
41. In respect of the plaintiff's claim for specific performance of the 1/3rd share of the land in question against the State Government, Issue No. 6 was framed by the trial court, which has been decided against the plaintiff. The gist of Issue No. 6 is that plaintiff has to prove that because Thakur Bhawani Singh died childless, the land allotted to him, came to be vested in the State Government, hence, the plaintiff is entitled to seek specific (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (33 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] performance of the agreement to sale against the State Government.
42. In this context, the plaintiff, in Para No. 5 of the plaint, averred that Thakur Bhawani Singh had passed away one and half or two years ago and that he is not survived by any of his legal heirs/ natural successor. The plaintiff also gave a reference in the plaint of a certificate of the Gram Panchayat- Japda, certifying the fact that Bhawani Singh died childless. However, in the evidence, no such certificate has been produced by the plaintiff on record, nor any other convincing evidence has been produced by plaintiff, to prove that Thakur Bhawani Singh died childless and is not survived by any of his natural successors. Rather, the document of the Will of Bhawani Singh dated 02.04.1999 (Exhibit-4), on which the plaintiff relies, too does not verify the fact that Bhawani Singh had no natural successor. In the absence of evidence, the trial Court has also decided this Issue No.6 against the plaintiff, and this Court also does not find any evidence of plaintiff to conclude that Thakur Bhawani Singh passed away childless and without leaving any natural successor, hence, it cannot be held that the land in question, allotted to Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-Jagirdar, after his death, stands vested in the State Government by virtue of Section 29 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
43. It is further noteworthy that it is not even the case of the State Government in this appeal that the land in question stands vested in the State Government, on the ground that Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-jagirdar, to whom the land in question was allotted, died childless. There is no document at all, has been produced available on record before the Court to show or prove (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (34 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] that the land in question stands vested in the State Government. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2968/2002, filed by the State Government, questioning the allotment of the land in question to Thakur Bhawani Singh and asserting its rights, has already been dismissed way back on 08.03.2007, which is evident from the documents (Exhibits A-5 and A-6).
44. Apart from factual aspect, the legal position is well established that the relief of specific performance is a discretionary relief. As per Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as it was existed and in operation at the time of institution of the present civil suit on 18.04.2003, i.e., prior to the substitution of the new Section 20 w.e.f. 01.10.2018, vide Amendment Act No. 18/2018, the jurisdiction of the Court to grant a decree of specific performance is discretionary, and the Court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so. Therefore, the right of specific performance cannot be treated as an absolute right, but exercise of such right depends on the discretion of the Court, equally and other factors. Obviously, the discretion of the Court cannot be exercised arbitrarily, but must be guided by the sound and reasonable judicial principles. If the Court finds that a person seeking specific performance can be compensated otherwise or would not suffer a greater hardship, in case specific performance is denied, in that scenario, the Court may exercise its discretion to refuse the decree of specific performance, despite prove of execution of agreement to sale and payment of sale consideration, full or in part or as the case may be.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (35 of 45) [CFA-20/2024]
45. To subscribe such proposition of law, instead of referring to a catena of judgments, reference of a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Parswanath Saha v. Bandhana Modak [AIR (2025) SC 280] shall be suffice, wherein the proposition of law has been affirmed, taking note of the judicial precedents expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in previous judgments and taking into consideration Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act as it then was. Relevant para No. 27 of the judgment reads as under:-
"27. While evaluating whether specific performance ought to have been decreed in the present case, it would be necessary to bear in mind the fundamental principles of law. The court is not bound to grant the relief of specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so, Section 20(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 indicates that the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary. Yet, the discretion of the court is not arbitrary but is "sound and reasonable", to be "guided by judicial principles". The exercise of discretion is capable of being corrected by a court of appeal in the hierarchy of appellate courts. Sub- section (2) of Section 20 contains a stipulation of those cases where the court may exercise its discretion not to grant specific performance."
46. Hence, in view of above consideration, the plaintiff's prayer for specific performance of the agreement dated 31.03.1999 against the State Government, does not find any support, neither factually nor legally, hence Issue No.6 stands decided against appellants-plaintiff.
Issues No.2, 3 & 7:-
"(2) Whether Bhawani Singh appointed defendant No. 8 as his power of attorney holder, and executed a registered power of attorney in his favour?
(3) Whether defendant No. 8 Lawfully executed a sale agreement, in respect of land in question on 31.03.1999, in favor of the plaintiff and defendants No. 6 & 7 and received a sum of Rs. 14,00,000/-? (7) Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to get performance of the agreement?"
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (36 of 45) [CFA-20/2024]
47. Since while deciding Issue No.1, the trial Court held that plaintiff failed to prove that his alleged Bhawani Singh is khatedar of land of Khasra No.305/315, and in that sequence, though Issues No.2, 3 & 7 were decided in favour of plaintiff, but the trial Court, finally, in Para No.27, observed that findings of Issues No.2, 3 & 7 do not make entitle the plaintiff for the decree of specific performance. The trial Court failed to connect the execution of registered power of attorney, agreement to sale and document of consent deed, by and on behalf of Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex- jagirdar.
48. This Court, for the reasons mentioned in foregoing paragraphs and in view of the subsequent development of facts as also by noticing the change of stand of respondents-defendants, has decided Issue No.1 in affirmative manner, and has held in Issue No.1 that ex-jagirdar, Thakur Bhawani Singh was allotted land in question and he was the lawful Khudkast Khatedar of land of Khasra no. 305/315, measuring 68 Bigha 16 Biswa situated at Village Padasoli, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.
49. This Court has considered the evidence of plaintiff and his witnesses. PW-2, Phoolchand Saini, is the witness of agreement to sale (Exhibit-2) and Will of Bhawani Singh (Exhibit-4). No witness of plaintiff has marked as PW-3. PW-4, Sugna Ram Choudhary, is the witness of registered power of attorney of Thakur Bhawani Singh (Exhibit-1) and agreement to sale (Exhibit 2). PW-5, Bhawani Shankar Pareek, is the witness of agreement to sale (Exhibit-2), consent deed executed by Thakur Bhawani Singh (Exhibit-3) and the Will of Thakur Bhawani Singh (Exhibit-4). PW- 6, Ramakant Sharma, is the son of plaintiff- Ram Swaroop. In (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (37 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] counter evidence, from the side of defendants No.1 & 2, execution of power of attorney and agreement, has been denied only on the basis of a plea that Bhawani Singh had passed away on 07.08.1981. Death certificate of Bhawani Singh has been exhibited as Exhibit A1. This Court finds that defendants No.1 & 2, in view of subsequent events of not pressing their CWP No.9103/2008, and accepting the allotment of land in question in favour of Thakur Bhawani Singh, vide judgment dated 24.12.1997 passed by the Khudkast Commissioner, it cannot be presumed that this judgment was passed against a dead person. Hence, in that view, death certificate (Exhibit-A1) may not be connected with the ex-jagirdar, Thakur Bhawani Singh, R/o Chhota Japda, and otherwise details of Bhawani Singh, mentioned therein, do not match with Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-jagirdar. Thus, on the strength of statements of plaintiff and his witnesses, execution of documents of register power of attorney (Exhibit-1), agreement to sale (Exhibit-2) and consent deed of Bhawani Singh (Exhibit-3), has been proved.
50. Further, in view of subsequent events, allotment of land in question in favour of ex-jagirdar, Thakur Bhawani Singh under the judgment of Khudkast Commissioner dated 24.12.1997 and his allotment letter dated 31.12.1997, has emerged as conclusive and non-controversial. Therefore, probability tilts to hold that registered power of attorney dated 04.08.1997 was made by the ex-jagirdar, Thakur Bhawani Singh to persuade the proceedings of land allotment before the Khudkast Commissioner through his appointed and authorized power of attorney holder. The execution of agreement to sale dated 31.03.1999 (Exhibit-2) by the registered power of attorney holder of Thakur Bhawani Singh, (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (38 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] consequentially stands proved, since defendant No.8 does not dispute execution of this agreement, more over execution stands proved by witnesses to the agreement, i.e., PW4- Sugnaram and PW5- Bhawani Shankar Pareek.
51. In respect of payment of sale consideration of Rs.14,44,800/-, findings have already been recorded in Para No.12 of the present judgment.
52. Issue of readiness and willingness is non-controverted, hence, has already been decided by the trial Court, in favour of plaintiff.
53. Be that as it may, even if, Issues No.2, 3 & 7 are decided in favour of appellants-plaintiff, the appellants-plaintiff are not entitled to seek specific performance of the agreement to sale dated 31.03.1999 against the State Government, since the appellants-plaintiff have miserably failed to prove that Thakur Bhawani Singh had died childless, without leaving any natural successor and the land in question, allotted in favour of Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-Jagirdar, after his death, had vested in the State Government.
54. It is worthy to note, at the cost of repetition, that the State Government has not come up with a plea in support of the plaintiff's case, and nowhere alleges or admits that the land in question stands vested in the State Government, after the death of Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-Jagirdar.
55. Accordingly, Issues No.2, 3 & 7 are hereby decided in favour of appellants-plaintiff, but same do not hold the appellants-plaintiff entitled for the decree of specific performance against State Government.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (39 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] Issues No.8, 10 & 12 "(8) Whether, since Bhawani Singh was a former Jagirdar, no allotment of land could be duly made to him, and any such allotment in his favour is ineffective and void?
(10) Whether the disputed land is recorded in the name of government and is under the possession and cultivation of the government? (12) Whether a writ petition on behalf of the State of Rajasthan regarding the tenancy and alleged allotment of the disputed land, is pending in the Rajasthan High Court, and if so, what is its effect on the present suit?"
56. Issues No. 8, 10 and 12 were framed in light of the pleadings made in the written statement of the State Government and defendants No.1 & 2, because the State Government challenged the judgment of the Khudkast Commissioner dated 24.12.1997, whereby the land in question was allotted to Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-Jagirdar, by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2968/2002. However, later on, this petition was dismissed on 08.03.2007. Similarly, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9103/2008, allegedly filed by and on behalf of the legal representatives of deceased Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-Jagirdar, questioning the judgment of the Khudkast Commissioner and seeking fresh allotment of land, was also dismissed as withdrawn on 24.11.2016.
Thus, on record, the judgment of Khudkast Commissioner dated 24.12.1997, whereunder land in question was directed to be allotted to Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-Jagirdar, has emerged as non-controversial and conclusive piece of evidence, and no lis thereagainst, is stated to be pending, hence the allotment of land has been held to be lawful and valid in issue No.1. In view of the aforesaid, issues No. 8, 10 and 12 are hereby decided against the defendants.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:44437] (40 of 45) [CFA-20/2024]
Issue No.9:-
"(9) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction?"
57.1 Issue No. 9 pertains to the decree of permanent injunction as prayed by the plaintiff. In the detailed discussion of evidence in foregoing paragraph of the present judgment, while deciding Issue No. 4, the plaintiff failed to prove his cultivation and possession over 1/3rd share of the land in question. Hence, the prayer for permanent injunction for protection of his possession, has become infructuous.
57.2 It has been noticed from the record that during trial of suit, plaintiff moved an application for deletion of name of defendant Nos.1 & 2. That application was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 15.07.2016. This act of plaintiff gives an impression that plaintiff virtually waived his prayer of permanent injunction against defendant Nos.1 & 2.
57.3 It is settled proposition of law that in absence of proof of possession, no injunction order to protect possession can be granted.
58. Other relief of permanent injunction as prayed by plaintiff in respect of restraining State Government to open mutation of land in question in favour of defendants No.1 & 2, has rendered infructuous, in view of subsequent events of sanctioning mutation No.415 dated 19.10.2015, in favour of defendants No.1 & 2 alongwith other persons, treating them to be natural heirs of late Thakur Bhawani Singh. Though, this Court does not give any affirmation to the legality and validity of such mutation entry No.415, nevertheless, in absence of any prayer for amendment in (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (41 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] the plaint or an amended prayer, prayer of permanent injunction as made in the plaint, has rendered infructuous.
59. In addition to above, it is hereby observed that in the present suit, prayer of permanent injunction has been made as a consequential prayer to the principal relief of specific performance. Once the relief of specific performance has been denied, the decree of permanent injunction as prayed, may not be passed. Accordingly, the Issue No. 9 is decided against the appellants- plaintiff.
Issue No.12A:-
"(12A) Whether no cause of action arises in favor of the plaintiff to file this suit?"
60. Issue No. 12A is in respect of accrual of cause of action to the plaintiff, to institute the present civil suit. A perusal of Para No. 13 of the plaint shows the disclosure of cause of action by plaintiff in the plaint. According to the plaint, the plaintiff asserted his possession over 1/3rd share of the land in question and averred his apprehension of dispossession by the defendants. Simultaneously, the plaintiff also claimed relief of specific performance, based on agreement to sale dated 31.03.1999 against the State Government, alleging that Thakur Bhawani Singh, ex-Jagirdar, who was allotted the land in question, had died childless and without leaving any natural successor, hence, the land vests in the State Government. Thus, the apprehension of dispossession and the prayer of permanent injunction, are attached with the principal relief of specific performance, hence, it cannot be said that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff, to file the present suit. The trial court decided Issue No. 12A in a different context, which (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (42 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] cannot be affirmed and findings are hereby reversed. Accordingly, Issue No. 12A is decided against the defendants-respondents No.1 & 2.
61. Learned counsel for appellants, in their written arguments, has raised an argument that respondent/ defendant No. 8- Bhag Chand, is the person who can throw light on the germane issues involved herein, and his prayer is that the impugned judgment be quashed and by giving an opportunity to submit written statement and to produce evidence by defendant No.8, the suit may be remanded to the trial Court for de-novo trial and for deciding afresh.
In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 21.10.1982 passed by the Coordinate Bench in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.116/1981: Ganpat Chand Vs. Jhethmal.
62. In this context, it is appropriate to observe that defendant No.8 had appeared before the trial Court, but did not file any written statement, within the prescribed timeline. The contention on his behalf through advocate has been noted by the trial court in Para No. 8 of the impugned judgment. No one has turned up on his behalf in this first appeal as well. It was open for the appellants/ plaintiff to move an application before the trial Court to summon him as his witness, since defendant No.8 supported the case of the plaintiff, but same was not done. At the stage of first appeal, such a prayer of appellants cannot be held to be bona fide, fair and genuine. More so, status of defendant No.8 is nothing more than a registered power of attorney holder of ex- jagirdar, Thakur Bhawani Singh. In view of fact that ex-jagirdar, Thakur Bhawani Singh has passed away and his power of attorney (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (43 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] stands seized to operate, defendant No.8 is not in possession to support the plaintiff's case, over and above to the fate of Issue Nos.2, 3 & 7, which have already been held in favour of appellants-plaintiff. The judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Ganpat Chand (supra) does not support the contention of counsel for the appellants, in the given facts and circumstances, obtaining in the present case. Accordingly, such prayer of counsel for appellants is hereby rejected.
63. At this juncture, this Court deems it just and proper to observe that at the most, appellants-plaintiff can be held entitled to get refund of the amount, allegedly paid by him to defendant No.8, in furtherance of agreement to sale. According to the plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint, an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- was paid to defendant No. 8 jointly by the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 6 and 7, and an amount of Rs.44,800/- was paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 8. The plaintiff, for his 1/3 rd share in the land in question, has valued the suit @ Rs.4,66,000/- and paid court fees thereupon. Hence, the appellant-plaintiff as an alternative to his prayer for specific performance, is entitled to get refund of the amount of Rs.4,67,000/-.
But since no specific prayer to get refund of the amount paid by plaintiff has been made in the plaint, nor any amendment in the prayer has been asked for, therefore, in view of Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act, no directions to refund such amount to appellants-plaintiff can be issued.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Desh Raj v. Rohtash Singh [(2023) 3 SCC 714], has held that unless a plaintiff specifically seeks the refund of the earnest money at the time of (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (44 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] filing of the suit or by way of amendment, no such relief can be granted to him, even in case of refusal of specific relief of agreement in his favour.
64. Nevertheless, since respondent No.1, has willingly submitted a written undertaking on oath before this Court, in form of his additional affidavit dated 06.11.2025, expressing his willingness to compensate appellants-plaintiff with reasonable amount, hence, it is hereby observed that it is open for him to pay amount of Rs.4,67,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of suit to the date of actual payment, just in order to quietus the present lis and to compensate the appellants-plaintiff, but such observation of this Court, may not be misconstrued as issuance of any direction or a decree by this Court in favour of appellants- plaintiff.
65. As far as the power and jurisdiction of the Court to award compensation in addition to or in lieu of a decree of specific performance in the light of Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act is concerned, no compensation has been prayed for by the plaintiff, nor has any quantum of compensation been determined nor court fees has been paid thereon. Hence, as per Section 21(5) of the Specific Relief Act, no compensation can be awarded in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs.
66. The final judgment of acquittal dated 21.02.2022, passed in connection with FIR No. 336/2002, lodged by and on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against respondent No. 8, and the filing of appeal by respondent No. 1 against the said judgment, does not render any support to the rights of the plaintiff, to grant decree of specific performance in his favour in the present appeal.
(Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:44437] (45 of 45) [CFA-20/2024] Other documents produced along with the applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and placed on record, have been considered at the appropriate place, and if any document has been left from consideration, the same has not been found necessary to discuss, as it does not affect the merits of the appeal.
67. The net outcome of the discussion and enunciation made hereinabove is that the instant First Appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.09.2023 is affirmed. Litigation expenses shall be borne by the respective parties. No Costs. Decree be framed accordingly.
68. Record of trial Court be sent back.
69. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin Sharma (Uploaded on 20/11/2025 at 02:24:23 PM) (Downloaded on 20/11/2025 at 10:18:41 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)