JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) APPELLANT , Smt. Bhooli is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 1.10.2011 passed by the
A.C.J.M. (Sr. Division) and A.C.J.M. No.13, Bassi, Jaipur
Metropolitan, whereby the learned Magistrate has
dismissed her suit for cancellation of sale -deed dated
4.11.1987 and for permanent injunction against the respondents -defendants. She is equally aggrieved by the
judgment and decree dated 6.3.2013 passed by the
Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that appellants filed a suit for cancellation of sale -deed and permanent
injunction before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.
Division) NO.13, Bassi, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur
against the respondents. The learned trial court after
hearing both the parties framed seven issues. After
taking into consideration the oral and documentary
evidence, the learned trial court dismissed the said suit
on 1.10.2011. Aggrieved with the said judgment and
decree, appellants preferred an appeal before the
District and Sessions Judge, Bassi, Jaipur Metropolitan
Jaipur, and the learned District Judge, vide judgment
dated 6.3.2013 also dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
judgment and decree dated 1.10.2011 passed by the learned
trial court. Thus, there has been a concurrent finding of
fact of both the courts below.
The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned trial court has wrongly
concluded that since the appellant happened to be a
married daughter and since she belonged to Meena
community, she was not entitled to inherit her father's
property. However, in case, a person does not have any
son and has only daughters, in such a case, the daughters
are entitled to inherit their father's property.
Therefore, the learned trial court has committed a grave
error in applying the law. Hence, substantial questions
of law arise in the second appeal.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Vimal Kumar Jain, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that
entire case is based on facts. Moreover, the appellant is
trying to overturn a large number of events which have
occurred after her father's death. In fact, she is trying
to get the sale -deed dated 4.11.1987 cancelled in the
year 2006. Therefore, it is only a clever ploy to turn
the historical clock back.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.