CSA 421/05 Yasin Mohammad Vs. Ramjani through LRs & others (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur J U D G M E N T In S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.421/2005 Yasin Mohammad Vs. Ramjani through LRs and others Date Of Judgment :: 3rd August, 2009 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan, for appellant Mr. Rajesh Kapoor, for respondents. ........ By the Court :- This is defendant's second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 13/7/2005 passed by Additional District Judge No.4, Kota in Civil Regular Appeal No.15/2003 whereby the learned Judge set aside the judgment and decree dated 25/7/1996 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.2 North, Kota in Civil Suit No.227/1993. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed and declaration with the averments that proforma respondent no.2 Dr. Abdul Hamid Siddique is son of plaintiff-respondent Ramjani who sold the disputed property of the plaintiff- respondent Ramjani to the defendant-appellant Yasin Mohammad by registered sale deed without any authority. It CSA 421/05 Yasin Mohammad Vs. Ramjani through LRs & others (2) was also pleaded that son of the plaintiff is mentally not fit. 3. The defendant-appellant denied the averments made in the plaint and stated in his written statement that proforma respondent Dr. Abdul Hamid Siddique has received the disputed property in 'Hibba' from the plaintiff-respondent Ramjani, therefore being owner, he sold the said property to him against the consideration of Rs.11020/-. 4. Issues were framed. Evidence was recorded. The trial court after hearing the parties dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Plaintiff-respondent filed appeal which was allowed by the first appellate court. Hence, this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the point of admission and perused the impugned judgment and other material placed during the course of arguments. 6. It is not disputed that there was no written gift deed 'Hibbanama'. The appellant is only claiming his ownership over the disputed property on account of registered sale deed executed by proforma respondent Dr. Abdul Hamid Siddique, son of the plaintiff Ramjani and according to him, plaintiff Ramjani made an oral 'Hibba' of the disputed plot in favour of proforma respondent Dr. Abdul Hamid Siddique but the first appellate court after considering the entire evidence and material on record, disbelieved the CSA 421/05 Yasin Mohammad Vs. Ramjani through LRs & others (3) theory of oral gift 'Hibba' in favour of proforma respondent Dr. Abdul Hamid Siddique. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment, more so when no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Therefore, this second appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. 7. Consequently, this second appeal along with stay application is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. (J.R. Goyal),J. VS Shekhawat Jr.P.A. D33