[2025:RJ-JP:32918] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 12/2011 Babu Khan S/o Bhure Khan, Kundera, Teh. And Distt. Sawai Madhopur Raj. ----Appellant Versus Ramji Lal S/o Shri Krishn, Kundera, Teh. And Distt. Sawai Mad- hopur Raj. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shamsuddin Ansari, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dhruv Atri, Adv. with Mr. Mahendra Singh, Adv. for Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 21/08/2025 The civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Sawai Madhopur (for short ‘the first appellate Court’) in appeal No. 300/2009 (29/2008), whereby the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Sawai Madhopur in civil suit No. 43/2004 (200/1999) by which the plaintiff’s suit has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant (for short 'the defendant') mentioning therein that the plaintiff had purchased a plot by way of agreement dated 24.03.1991 in the [2025:RJ-JP:32918] (2 of 4) [CSA-12/2011] sale consideration of Rs. 30,105/- out of which Rs. 10,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. It was also mentioned that the plaintiff was waiting for the conversion of the land into residential but the defendant had not got the land converted and had not paid any heed towards it. The plaintiff served a notice to the defendant and the defendant dishonestly gave the reply that the defendant had refunded Rs. 20,000/- to the plaintiff. So, the permanent injunction be granted in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that he had refunded Rs. 20,000/- back to the plaintiff in the presence of Ramji Lal Verma and Shyam Lal Bairwa. He also stated that the suit filed by the plaintiff is beyond limitation. So, the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1- vk;k oknh izfroknh dks LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd izfroknh IykV dk cspku ukek lc jftLVªkj lokbZ ek/kksiqj ds dk;kZy; esas mifLFkr gksdj fu;ekuqlkj rgjhj o rdehy djok;sa \ 2- vk;k oknh izfroknh dks LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn djokusa dk vf/kdkjh gS fd izfroknh oknh dks fooknxzLr IykV ds dCtsa o bLrseky esa dksbZ ck/kk uk rks mRiUu djs vkSj ukgh djokus rFkk fooknkxzLr IykV dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks fdlh Hkh izdkj ls vUrfjr Hkh uk djs \ 3- vk;k nkok de dksVZ Qhl ij gksus ds dkj.k pyusa ;ksX; ugh gS \ [2025:RJ-JP:32918] (3 of 4) [CSA-12/2011] 4- vk;k nkok E;kn ckgj is'k fd;k x;k gSa\ 5- vuqrks"k\” To prove his case, plaintiff got examined as PW-1- Babu Khan, PW-2-Rajendra Prasad Gupta and PW-3 Ramjilal Verma and got exhibited certain documents. The defendants also got examined himself as DW-1-Ramji Lal. After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2006, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff challenged the said judgment and decree dated 20.12.2006 passed by the trial Court by filing an appeal and the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 10.11.2010 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2006. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate court have committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. He also submits that the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court wrongly came to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation as well as barred by law because a person who belongs to General category cannot purchase the land of SC&ST category person but that issue was not framed and no such defence was taken by the defendant. So, the judgments passed by both the courts below are required to be set aside and the present second appeal be admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the defendant has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by law because the [2025:RJ-JP:32918] (4 of 4) [CSA-12/2011] land belongs to SC/ST category person and cannot be transferred to non-SC/ST category person. So, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as the appeal filed by the plaintiff. So, the appeal filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff as well as counsel for the defendants. It is an admitted position that the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed on account of barred by limitation as well as barred by law because plaintiff belongs to General category and land belongs to the SC/ST category person. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court had not committed any error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal. So, no ground is made out to admit the appeal on the substantial questions of law, as framed in the memo of appeal. Therefore, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/42