Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mukanda Ram Vs. Bodu Ram and ors.

Mukanda Ram vs Bodu Ram and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 04, 2011
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/920526

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.441/2008
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil

Key legal issue
Civil
Acts & sections
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 100

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mukanda Ram

Advocate Mr. Ajay Gupta, Adv

Respondent

Bodu Ram and ors.

Legal References

Excerpt

1. heard the learned counsel for appellant. 2. plaintiff's/respondent's suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 23.06.1989 and for permanent injunction was decreed by the trial court. the judgment and decree of the trial court was affirmed by the first appellate court while dismissing first appeal of defendants. hence, this second appeal has been preferred on behalf of defendant no.2. 3. from the facts mentioned in the judgments of both the courts below, which have not been controverted by the learned counsel for appellant also, it reveals that a land measuring 2 bighas 7 biswas, out of khasra no.49 had already been sold to plaintiff through registered sale deed dated 10.08.1973 and the same was again sold vide impugned sale deed dated 23.06.1989. the trial court and the first appellate court recorded a finding that defendants have not filed their written statements and from the evidence available on record, the suit of plaintiff is liable to be decreed. 4. the controversial issues involved in the present case are relating to question of facts and there is concurrent finding of facts by both the courts below, which cannot be interferred with by this court in second appeal under section 100 cpc. 5. the second appeal can be entertained only on substantial question of law, which, in my view, is not involved in this second appeal. hence, it is dismissed in limine.  

Full Judgment

1. Heard the learned counsel for appellant.

2. Plaintiff's/respondent's suit for cancellation of Sale Deed dated 23.06.1989 and for permanent injunction was decreed by the trial Court. The judgment and decree of the trial Court was affirmed by the First Appellate Court while dismissing first appeal of defendants. Hence, this second appeal has been preferred on behalf of defendant No.2.

3. From the facts mentioned in the judgments of both the Courts below, which have not been controverted by the learned counsel for appellant also, it reveals that a land measuring 2 Bighas 7 Biswas, out of Khasra No.49 had already been sold to plaintiff through registered Sale Deed dated 10.08.1973 and the same was again sold vide impugned Sale Deed dated 23.06.1989. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court recorded a finding that defendants have not filed their written statements and from the evidence available on record, the suit of plaintiff is liable to be decreed.

4. The controversial issues involved in the present case are relating to question of facts and there is concurrent finding of facts by both the Courts below, which cannot be interferred with by this Court in second appeal under Section 100 CPC.

5. The second appeal can be entertained only on substantial question of law, which, in my view, is not involved in this second appeal. Hence, it is dismissed in limine.  

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial