4 Saie— Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur , 4™4— Jodhpur sufert Ta MEMO OF APPEAREANCE S.B. CIVIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2020 DATE 15/06/2020 APPELLANT. RESPONDENT SITA DEVI V/S NARAYAN SINGH & ORS. Rta oan quad 4/eq ge qos APPELLANT #7 ak ok 3 44) Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur # aur &11/ waar # aa/et gem eax weet Gtk & Act F Plead or A feared @1 feaie 15/06/2020 Gee Ravi Parwar Ems atv cavparear gi Ma. 9414341486 @ RAVIPANWAR (ADVOCATE) E-Maitadvravipanwar@ (2913/2008) (My 9414341486 7 HRT PATI TI PECT| Scanned with CamScannerS.B. CIVIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No. aoa Case Title: Sita Devi vs Narayan Singh & Ors. Nature OfCase TV @VIREGEARTIRST | APPEAL ject Matter: CIVIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL U/S OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECRE! DATED 20.12.2019 PASSED BY SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR JOSHI, RS, LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE IN CIVIL SUIT NO lee TTLED AS, 2. MATTER PERTAINING TO s NARAYAN SINGH & ORS. YV/S SITA DEVI, WHEREBY ‘THE LEARNED COURT BELOW HAS DECREED ‘THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE FILED | BY THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT. | U/S 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 | DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT SIROHI, CIVIL SUIT NUMBER 68/2011, DATE OF DECREE OR DECISION 20.12.2019 “Z. DETAILS OF SUB-ORDINATE COURT/HIGH COURT/TRIAL COURT sown THE COUNSEL, RAVI PANWAR 2913/2008 9414341486 Ravi Partwar El al ies TilearevrtesiaeD Scanned with CamScannerIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASHTHAN AT JODHPUR. APPELLANT VERSUS RESPONDENT Narayan Singh & Ors. SYNOPSIS aia COUGH COUNSEL Scanned with CamScanner= FOR RAJASRTRAN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAT AT JODHPUR. APPELLANT VERSUS RESPONDENT Sita Devi s INDEX OIAG) ue 1. Memo of Appeal 2. Stay application 3. Affidavit in support of stay application. (5 Documents 1. Certified copy of judgment dated 20.12.2019 J 3 32-33 a THROUGH COUNSEL Ravi Panwar Emaih-ads sanparwangomal: M 416341406 aM 2. Certified copy of decree dated 20.12. Scanned with CamScannerIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASHTHAN ATJODHPUR. S. B. CIVIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. ___/2020 APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: CHAIN Sitadevi D/o Dharm Singh, W/o 67 years, resident of Anadara, af present Chanar, Tehsil- Abu Singh, aged- about Road, District- Sirohi (Rajasthan) VERSUS RESPONDENT: 1. Narayan Singh S/o Dharm Singh, aged- 45 years, by caste- Rojput, resident of Anadara, Tehsil- Revdar, District- Sirohi (Rajasthan) | PLAINTIFF ! 2. Lakhpat Singh S/o Dharm Singh, by caste- Rajput, resident of Anadara, Tehsil: Revdar, District- Sirohi (Rajasthan) 3, Kesar Singh S/o Dharm Singh, by caste- Rajput, resident of Anadara, Tehsil- Revdor, District- Sirohi (Rajasthan) 4. Poonam Singh S/o Dharm Singh, by caste- Rojput, resident of Anadora, Tehsil- Revdar, District- Sirohi (Rajasthan) 5, Jamna Devi D/o Dharm Singh W/o Laxman Singh, R/o Anadara, at present Nandia, Tehsil- Pindwara, District- Sirohi (Raj.) Pawani Devi D/o Dharm Singh, W/o Sohan Singh Chouhan, R/o Anadara, at present Bhanwari, Tehsil- Pindwara, District- Sirohi (Raj.) Scanned with CamScannerTo, Sharda Devi D/o Dharm Singh, W/o Shri Mohan Singh, R/o Anadara, at present Shivgani, District- Sirohi (Raj.) Asha Devi D/o Dharm Singh, W/o Devi Singh Chouhan, R/o Anadara, at present Pindwara, District- Sirohi (Raj.) DEFENDANTS S. B. CIVIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.12.2019 PASSED BY SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR JOSHI, R.J.S (DJ/C), LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE SIROHI; IN CIVIL SUIT NO. 68/2011 (CIS No.879/2014), TITLED AS NARAYAN SINGH & ORS. V/S. SITA DEVI, WHEREBY THE LEARNED COURT BELOW HAS DECREED THE SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT. VALUATION OF APPEAL -Rs. 400/- COURT FEES PAID Rs. 215/- Hon'ble the Chief Justice and his other companion judges of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS, The humble appellant/defendant above named, most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under:~ 1 That the factual matrix of the case in short is that the plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit partition of immovable property and permanent injunction before the before the court of the District Judge No.2, Sirohi Scanned with CamScannerstating therein that an ancestral property including house and shops of the measurement as mentioned in the para No.l of the sull of his ownership and possession is situated at village Anadora, Tehsi- Revdor, Disirict= Sirohi which have been marked os mark ABCDEF in the map enclosed with the suit Plaintiff's father late Dharm Singh had executed a Will in relation to the shop, house and plot as mentioned in the suit on dated 12.11.1997 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 and divided ils western port ‘as ABCD. The plaintiff further averred that all these four ports of the property were divided and given fo plaintiff and defendant No.! to 3 through Will dated 3,02.2005. the plaintiff further overred that the daughters, defendant No. 4 fo 8 of the late Dharm singh are martied ond live at their inaws, Since, the entire properly of the lale Dharm Singh was his acquired one, therefore, he was enililed to execule Will In that regard. The plaintiff furher overred thal about six months back, when his mother expired, the plaintiff ried to raise construction of a wall in his part of the plo! and he said fo the defendant No.1 to 3 raise their own walls in their respective parts of the Jand, but they did not lel him roise his wall and finally, iff proyed that a decree of partition may be the plainti possed as per map enclosed ond o decree for permanent Injunction may ako be possed ond defendant No.1 to 3 moy be restrained to create any hurdle in his construction work etc. Scanned with CamScannerThat the learned court below issued the notices to the all the defendants including _ present Oppeliant/defendant. The defendant No.4 to 8 while filing written statement denied the averments made by the respondeni/plainiiff. It was stated by the Gefendanis that late Dharm Singh had never executed Gny Will. Even if the defendant No.4 to 8 are married Gaughters of late Dharm Singh, but they have equal right and share in the property in question. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right to get any decree for Partition and permanent injunction, neither he has any right to raise any construction in the property in question. It was further prayed by the defendants that @ decree may be passed for partition of the land between all the parties as 1/9 share to each. That on the basis of pleading of the parties, the learned frial court framed as many as eleven issues including that of the relief also in the Suit proceedings which are as follows :- 1. Whether the property as mentioned in para No.1 of the suit is ancestral property and is under ownership and possession of the plaintiff? ...plaintiff 2. Whether mark ABCDEF property as mentioned in the map enclosed with the suit wos divided by plaintiff's father Dharm Singh in favour of plaintift and defendant No.1 fo 3 and the back side of the western part of the property was divided as ABCD parfs and part C was given fo plantiff, D to Scanned with CamScanner4 Lakhpat, E to Kesar Singh in his Will dated 12.11,19978 plaintiff Whether Dharm Singh kept the property Mark A with shops in his share and subsequently, on dated 03.02.2005 he divided all his property between plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 32 ..defendont Whether Dharm Singh left 12 wide street between properties B and E and donated 20x12 feet land to public pyau and 20x15 for medical facilities which has been marked in the map as X and Y? ..plaintift Whether the plaintiff has possession over the land C as marked in the map and defendant No.1 to 3 have also possession over their respective shares? plaintiff . Whether the plaintiff has erased the shop of the eastern side of his share for reconstruction and defendant No.1 fo 3 are creating hurdles for the plaintitfe Whether the plaintiff wants to raise wall between defendant No.1 to 3, for which, the defendant No.1 to 3 are creating hurdles? Whether the valuation of the property in question is Rs. six lakhs, if yes, then what would be its effect? Whether the plaintiff has paid deficit court fee? Scanned with CamScanner6 0.Whether the property in question is of the 1/9 share of Plaintiff and all the defendants, hence, the decree for partition may be passed accordingly? I).Reliet? On behalf of the plaintift/respondent, PW-1 Narayan Singh PW-2 Bhanwarlal, PW-3 Govindram Choudhary, were gol examined in the witness box and they were ross examined by the defendant's counsel. in documentary evidences map Exhibit-1, will dated 12.11.97 Exhibit-2, Will dated 03.02.2005 Exhibit-a, Consent letter Lakhpat Singh Exhibit-4, consent lette Kesar Singh Exhibit-5, consent letter Narayan Singh ibit-6 map of the properly of Lokhpat Exhibit-7, Map of the properly of Kesar Singh Exhibit-8, map of the property of Narayan Singh Exhibit-9, Statement of Poonam Singh Exhibit-10, affidavit Kesar singh Exhibit- 11, reply fo the application Order 7 Rule 14 (3) Cec Exhibit-12 and affidavit of Kesar singh Exhibit-13 were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants DW-1 Poonam Singh, DE-2 Kesar Singh, OW-3 Smt. Asha, DW-4 Smt Sita were examined That affer recording the evidence of the both parties and considering the oral as well documentary evidence available on record, the learned court below, porlly decreed the suit vide impugned judgement and decree dated 20.12.2019 and decree | for permanent injunction has been passed , That hence, under these circumstances, being aggrieved of the impugned judgment and decree Scanned with CamScannerdated 20.12.2019, the defendant/appeliant prefers this civil regular first appeal inter alia on the following ‘amongst other grounds. OUNDS @. That the learned trial court seriously erred in the eye of law as well as in facts while decreed the civil suit of the plaintitf/respondent while relying upon the plaintiff's story in a cursory and mechanical manner which has occasioned a substantial failure of justice. On this sole ground, the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 is liable to be quashed and set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed. b. that the leamed Court below has commitied a grave illegality while deciding the issue No.1, 3, 4 and 5. it is submitted that the appellant/ defendant has clearly mentioned in his written statement that the defendant No.4 fo 8 are daughters of late Dharm Singh who have equal right over the property of late Shri Dharm singh. It was also averred in the written statement thai Dharm Singh never executed any Will in his lifetime, but all these aspects of the case have not been considered by the leamed trial court and ihe judgment and decree has been passed in a cursory and mechanical manner, Hence, under _ these circumstances, the judgment and decree impugned is liable to be quashed and set aside. Scanned with CamScannerScanned with CamScanner€. That the other grounds would be urged at the time Of arguments with the due permission of the Hon'ble Court, PRAYER It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Regular First Appeal of the appellani/ defendant May kindly be accepted and allowed, and the judgment Gnd decree dated 20.12.2019 passed by learned District Judge, Sirohi in original civil suit no. 68/2011 (CIS No.879/2014) may kindly be quashed and set aside. Or a decree for partition may be passed in favour of all the parties of their respective share 1/9 each of the property in question. Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant, Cost of the appeal may also be awarded in favour of the appellant. HUMBLE/APPELLANT THROUGH COUNSEL Ravi Pa Scanned with CamScanner10 NOTES: 1 No such appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble Court in this matter. 2. PF notices and extra sets shall be filed within the prescribed period 3. That pie papers are not readily available, hence typed on these stout papers. 4, That typed by my private steno in my office. 5. The case pertains to Jodhpur jurisdiction. COUNSEL FOR THE/APPELLANT (Ravi Panw eduravipanwereamal. NAAN Ravi Panwar « Ema advaciny 2 Scanned with CamScanneru IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASHTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. ____/2020 IN S.B. CIVIL REGULAR FIRST APPEALNO, ___/2020 APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: Sitadevi D/o Dharm Singh, W/o Laxman Singh, aged- about 67 years, resident of Anadara, at present Chanar, Tehsil- Abu Road, District- Sirohi (Rajasthan) VERSUS RESPONDEI 1. Narayan Singh S/o Dharm Singh, aged- 45 years, by caste- Rajput, resident of Anadara, Tehsil: Revdor, District- Sirohi (Rajasthan) PLAINTIFF 2, Lokhpat Singh S/o Dharm Singh, by coste- Rajput, resident of Anadara, Tehsil Revdar, Disirict- Sirohi (Rajasthan) 3. Kesar Singh S/o Dharm Singh, by caste- Rajput, resident of Anadara, Tehsil- Revdar, District- Sirohi (Rajasthan) 4, Poonam Singh S/o Dharm Singh, by caste- Rojput, resident of Anadara, Tehsil- Revdar, District- sirohi (Rajasthan) 5. Jamna Devi D/o Dharm Singh W/o Laxman Singh, R/o Anadara, at present Nandia, Tehsil- Pindwara, District- Sirohi (Raj.) “Si i Scanned with CamScanner6 Pawani Devi D/o Dharm Singh, W/o Sohan Singh Chouhan, R/o Anadara, of present Bhanwari, Tehsil- Pindwara, District- Sirohi (Roj.) 7. Sharda Devi D/o Dharm Singh, W/o Shri Mohan Singh, R/o Anadara, af present Shivganj, District- Sirohi (Roj.) 8 Asha Devi D/o Dharm Singh, W/o Devi Singh Chouhan, R/o Anadara, at present Pindwara, District- Sirohi (Raj.) DEFENDANTS STAY APPLICATION IN S. B. CIVIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 5 OF C.P.C. READWITH 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. To, Hon'ble Chief Justice and his other companion Judges of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS, The humble appellani/defendant above named, most humbly and respectfully submits as under :- 1. That the above-named appellant preferred the annexed $.8. Civil Regular First Appeal and the facts and grounds of the appeal may kindly be treated as necessary part of this stay application. 2. That Civil Regular First Appeal preferred by the appellant will likely to be allowed because having preferred on solid grounds and there is full hope that finally this Civil Regular First Appeal will be decided in ati Scanned with CamScannerfavour of the present appellant / defendant. Balance ond convenience also lie in favour of the present appellant / defendant. 3. That if the interim relief is granted in favour of the present appellant then the appellant would suffer with itreparable loss. Respondent / Plaintiff will not be affected in any manner, if the interim relief granted in favour of the present appellant. PRAYER 1 is most humbly and respectfully prayed that interim relief may kindly ordered to be given as under: - During the pendency of the instant Civil First Appeal, the effect and operation of the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Sirohi in Civil Original Suit No. 68/2011 (879/2014) titled as Narayan Singh Vs. Sita Devi & Ors. may kindly be ordered to be stayed. ji. Any other appropriate order or relief, which may serve the purpose of the present appeal considering the facts and circumstances of this case, may also kindly be passed in favour of the present appellant. HUMBLE APPELLANT THROUGH COUNSEL (RAVI PANWAR}—— Ravi Panwars. ty + adv rimamventjomelibon 215331406 Scanned with CamScanner4 NOTES: That no such stay application has previously been filed in this matter before this Hon'ble court. PF notices and extra sets shall be filed within prescribed period. That pie papers are not readily available, hence typed on these stout papers. That typed by my private steno in my office. COUNSEL FOR/THE APPELLANT Ravi Panwa ae Moa 5, Scanned with CamScannerINTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUKE FOR RAJASHIHAN AT JODHPUR, ms 51B, CIVIL MISC, STAY APPLICATION WO, oannn-n/2029 N 5B, CIVIL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO, 10 VERSUS HESPONDENT Sita Devi Narayan Singh & Ors, ‘AFHDAVITIN SUPPORT OF THE STAY APPLICATION |, Sita Devi $/o Shri Mansharan, aged 40 yeors, by caste- Jat, resident of Dhani 4 COR, Saharani, Tehsil- Tibbi, District- Sirohi (Rajasthan), do hereby lake oath and stole Os under 1, That | am the appellant in the present case & well aware of the facts & circumstances of case, 2, That the annexed stay application has been drafted under my instructions ond the contents mentioned in the same have been erploined to me in Hindi ond 1 have understood the some and the same are believed Jo be true as per my personal knowledge, no 1 to 2 of my above Nothing has been Scanned with CamScanner