SBC SECOND APPEAL NO. 356/2007 – GAYATRI DEVI V/S JETHA RAM AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD. 2.12.2008 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.356/2007 Gayatri Devi. versus Jetha Ram and ors. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.G.J.Gupta, for the appellant Mr.R.K.Thanvi, for the respondents. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 2nd December, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. Against the concurrent judgments of two Courts below, this second appeal of the defendants is directed against the judgment of the first appellate court dtd.8.8.2007 upholding the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dtd.21.12.2004 whereby both the SBC SECOND APPEAL NO. 356/2007 – GAYATRI DEVI V/S JETHA RAM AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD. 2.12.2008 2/3 Courts below decreed the suit of the plaintiff and held that the suit property situated at the main road ward No.4 Saduwali, Tehsil and Dist. Sri Ganganagar was not sold by the plaintiff to one Rajendra Kumar who in turn according to the defendants, sold the said property to Shakuntala. 3. This issue No.5 was decided by the learned trial Court on the ground that the alleged agreement of sale produced before the lenared trial Court was executed by one Jetha Ram S/O Kashi Ram in favour of said Rajendra Kumar, whereas the plaintiff Jetha Ram S/O Basti Ram who is a different person. Therefore, the said agreement produced by the defendants was not believed by the learned trial Court. The Appellate Court confirmed these findings and held that the plaintiff was entitled to mandatory injunction against the defendants and was also entitled to possession of the said room as the plaintiff never lost title over the said property. 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the judgments of the two Courts below, this Court is satisfied that there is no misreading of evidence or perversity in the said findings of Courts below and therefore, no substantial question SBC SECOND APPEAL NO. 356/2007 – GAYATRI DEVI V/S JETHA RAM AND ORS. : JUDGMENT DTD. 2.12.2008 3/3 of law arises in the present appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit, the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.19 Ss/-