JUDGMENT : Ramchandra Singh Jhala, J. The instant second appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 16.9.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nathdwara (Rajasthan) in Civil Appeal No.16/2008 whereby he has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.2.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nathdwara in Civil Original Suit No.44/2008 whereby said suit was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff instituted a suit on 28.2.2006 before the learned Civil Judge, Nathdwara for cancellation of the sale deed against the respondent-defendant. In the suit it is stated that the appellant plaintiff owns agriculture land situated at Patwar Halka Gunjol and same was in her possession and was recorded in the name of appellant-plaintiff in the revenue record, but in the year 2005 the respondent-defendant got the said property mutated in his favour on the basis of a sale deed dated 24.8.1984. It is submitted in the plaint that at the time when the sale deed was made, the land was in the name of Padam Singh, husband of appellant-plaintiff. The said land was gair khatedari land and a gair khatedar tenant has no right to sell the land without obtaining khatedari right. The appellant-plaintiff has physical possession over the said land and same was cultivated by her. She also invested huge amount on the said land and the respondent-defendant cannot dispossess her from the said land. 3. In the year 2005 she came to know that the land, which is in her possession, has been mutated in the name of respondent-defendant Bheem Singh as a khatedar on the basis of sale deed dated 24.8.1984 which were executed between appellant-plaintiff's husband and respondent-defendant's father. The appellant-plaintiff challenged the mutation entry by filing a mutation appeal which was allowed and entry of Bheem Singh made in mutation register has been cancelled. Thereafter the suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff for challenging the said sale deed dated 24.8.1984. 4. The respondent-defendant filed written statement and denied all the averments made in the suit. The appellant-plaintiff challenged the mutation entry by filing a mutation appeal which was allowed and entry of Bheem Singh made in mutation register has been cancelled. Thereafter the suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff for challenging the said sale deed dated 24.8.1984. 4. The respondent-defendant filed written statement and denied all the averments made in the suit. It was admitted by the respondent-defendant that land belongs to the plaintiff's husband, but he had right to sell the said land, therefore, he executed a sale deed and registered the same on dated 24.8.1984 and after execution of sale deed, the said land was in possession of his father and after death of his father, the said land is in possession of defendant. The defendant also stated in written statement that said land was land of appellant's husband so he had right to sell out the said property. He has also stated that the suit was filed after 22 years of execution of sale deed, therefore, the said suit may be dismissed. 5. On the basis of pleadings, the learned trial court framed following issues:- 1 & vk;k okfn;k mlds okn ds in la0 2 esa of.kZr fodz; i= fnuakd 24-08-1984 dks fujLr djokus dh vf/kdkjh gS\ 2 & vk;k okfn;k ds ifr ine flag }kjk mDr fodz; i= fof/kor :i ls izfroknh ds firk ds gd esa izfrQy izkIr dj fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k gS\ 3 & vk;k okfn;k ds ifr }kjk mDr Hkwfe fodz; fnuakd 24-08-1984 ls izfroknh ds firk o izfroknh Hkwfe ij dkfct gS\ 4 & vk;k okfn;k dk okn fe;kn ckgj gksus ls pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 5 & vuqrks"kA 6. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties decided the issues in favour of respondent-defendant and against the appellant-plaintiff and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 26.02.2008. The appellant-plaintiff being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Nathdwara, which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.9.2013 and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court was affirmed. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellate court has also dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. for placing on record certain documents. 7. The appellant-plaintiff being aggrieved with the judgment and decree of first appellate court, has preferred the instant second appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellate court has also dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. for placing on record certain documents. 7. The appellant-plaintiff being aggrieved with the judgment and decree of first appellate court, has preferred the instant second appeal. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has contended that the trial court has erred in law in dismissing the suit without appreciating the fact that husband of plaintiff Padam Singh was himself a gair khatedar, therefore, a gair khatedar under the allotment rules had not received sanad or title document. It is contended that by virtue of Section 17, 5(43) and 41 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, a Gair Khatedar tenant is simply entitled to protect his possession without any other rights. Learned trial court has failed to appreciated the said provisions of law. It is also contended that the learned first appellate court has not considered and relied upon the documents submitted by her and learned appellate court has wrongly dismissed the application preferred by the appellant for producing additional evidence while wrongly affirming the finding of learned trial court. 9. It is also further contended that the learned trial court has erred in law in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant plaintiff by deciding issues No.1 and 2 against the appellant plaintiff only on the basis of respondent-defendant's evidence and the trial court did not examine the plaintiff's evidence. It is also contended that the learned trial court misread the evidence available on record regarding possession. The mutation entry was in the name of plaintiff on 5.3.2005 i.e. prior to mutation entered in the name of defendant. The suit was filed for cancellation of sale deed and not for possession. The appellant is already in possession of the said land. The trial court has wrongly reached to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no right to challenge the sale deed after long lapse of time, therefore, the trial court had wrongly decided the issue No.3 against the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has also submitted that appellant-plaintiff was in possession of the land till today and recently in the year 2005, she came to know about the sale deed dated 24.8.1984, therefore, the issue No.4 regarding limitation may not be decided against the appellant-plaintiff. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has also submitted that appellant-plaintiff was in possession of the land till today and recently in the year 2005, she came to know about the sale deed dated 24.8.1984, therefore, the issue No.4 regarding limitation may not be decided against the appellant-plaintiff. 10. It is further submitted that the application filed by the appellant under Order 41, Rule 27 to produce certain additional documents has wrongly been dismissed by the appellate court without even appreciating the fact that the document in question were relating to her continuous ownership and possession over the said land. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments:- (i) 2004(2) DNJ (Raj.)532 - Virendra Singh & Ors. v. Kashiram (deceased) through LRs. (ii) (2014) 8 SCC 294 - Gaiv Dinshaw Irani & Ors. v. Tehmtan Irani & Ors. (iii) (2007) 2 SCC 404 - Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (dead) by LRs. (iv) 2009 (3) RLW 2186 (SC) - Jharu Ram Roy v. Kamjit Roy & Ors. (v) AIR 1962 SC 847 - Jumma Masjid, Mereara v. Kodimaniandra Deviah & Others. (vi) AIR 1962 Patna 392 (V 49 C 104) - Gauri Shankar Singh and another v. Smt. Jwalamukhi Devi & Ors. (vii) AIR 1993 Karnataka 326 - M.C. Lakshminarasappa and Anr. v. The Asst. Commissioner, Chikkaballapur and Ors. (viii) 2003 (3) Civil L.J. 582 - Mallappa Adiveppa Hadapad v. Smt. Rudrawwa and others. (ix) 1998 RRD 396 - Babu Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (x) RLW 2001 (2) Raj. 1092 - Jeewan Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 12. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent defendant submitted that there is concurrent finding of both the learned courts and both the courts below have rightly appreciated the fact that late Padam Singh had executed a sale deed dated 24.8.1984. Learned trial court has not committed any error while deciding all the issues in favour of the respondent-defendant and the issues have rightly been decided against the appellant plaintiff. It is also submitted that no error has been committed by learned first appeal court as well as learned trial court while passing the impugned judgments and decrees as the same have been passed after appreciating and scrutinizing the material evidence available on record. 13. It is also submitted that no error has been committed by learned first appeal court as well as learned trial court while passing the impugned judgments and decrees as the same have been passed after appreciating and scrutinizing the material evidence available on record. 13. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondent that learned appellate court has rightly dismissed the application preferred by the appellant for producing additional evidence while affirming the finding of learned trial court. Therefore, the present second appeal may be dismissed. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of his arguments has relied upon the following judgments:- (i) 1985 AIR (SC) page 694 - Ram Pyare v. Ram Narain and others. (ii) 1973 AIR (Allahabad) 292 (V 60 C 103) - Desh Raj and others v. Lal Sahai Singh & Ors. (iii) 2014 Suppl.) CCC 397 (SC) - Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Bannama (D) by LRs. 15. (ii) 1973 AIR (Allahabad) 292 (V 60 C 103) - Desh Raj and others v. Lal Sahai Singh & Ors. (iii) 2014 Suppl.) CCC 397 (SC) - Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Bannama (D) by LRs. 15. By the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.2.2008, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nathdwara in the present suit for cancellation of the sale deed dated 24.8.1984 executed by the husband of the plaintiff late Shri Padam Singh, rejected the suit with the following observations:- ^^8- oknh;k us viuh lk{; esa 'kiFk i= ls eq[; ijh{kk esa vfHkopuksa dks iq"V fd;k gS] ysfdu ftjg esa c;ku fd;k gS fd o"kZ 1984 esa ineflag us eksgu flag dks tehu csph gks rks irk ughaA fpeu flag o ineflag nksuksa HkkbZ;ksa us ukFk }kjk rglhy dk;kZy; vkdj jftLV~h izn'kZ 1 djk;h gks rks esjh tkudkjh esa ugha gSA vHkh eSa dYyk [ksM+h esa jgrh gwa] tks/kiqj ugha jgrh gwaA esjk dYyk [ksM+h esa oksVjfyLV esa uke gS ;k ugha] dkV fn;k gksxkA tks/kiqj okyk edku ineflag ds thfor jgrs cuk;k FkkA ineflag th ds thfor jgrs] edku dks cspus dk vf/kdkj ineflag ths dks gh FkkA ;g lgh gS fd tehu ij dksV cuh gksdj QkVd yxh gqbZ gSA QkVd ij Hkheflag dk uke igys fy[kk gqvk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd eSa tks/kiqj jgrh gwa vkSj xkao esa vkrh&tkrh gwaA xokg ih0M 2 egsUnzflag us 'kiFk i= ds ek/;e ls eq[; ijh{kk esa ineflag ds thfor jgrs gq, mldk dCtk ns[kuk o mldh e`R;q ds ckn cnu dqaoj dk mDr tehu ij dCtk ns[kuk o pkjk dkVuk dgk gS] ysfdu vf/koDrk izfroknh }kjk ftjg djus ij blus c;ku fd;k gS fd ;g lgh gS fd fooknxzLr tehu nks Hkkxksa esa caVh gksdj nks QkVds yxh gSa ml QkVd ij Hkheflag pkSgku dk uke vafdr gks] irk ugha gSA vxj ineflag th us fookfnr tehu eksgu flag th dks csp nh gks rks irk ugha gSA ineflag ds lkFk fpeu flag th jftLV~h djkus ukFk }kjk vk;s gks rks irk ugha gSA ;g eq>s irk ugha gS fd fookfnr tehu dh QkVdksa ij Hkheflag ds rkys yxs gksA ;g eq>s irk ugha gS fd cnu dqoaj o iq= tks/kiqj esa cl x;s gks vkSj ogha buds jk'kudkMZ gksA bl izdkj ;g lk{kh viuh ftjg esa oknxzLr tehu ds laca/k esa Hkheflag dk dCtk] QkVd ij uke o vU; rF;ksa ds ckjs esa tkudkjh ugha gksuk dgrk gS vkSj ek= okfn;k ds i{k esa LVh&jVkbZ lk{; c;ku djrk gSA blh izdkj Mh0Mh0 1 Hkheflag Lo;a us eq[; ijh{kk esa 'kiFk i= ds ek/;e ls c;ku fd;k gS vkSj dFku fd;k gS fd fnuakd 24-08-1984 dks lEikfnr fodz; foys[k ds vuqlkj ineflag us : 8000@& izkIr dj d`f"k Hkwfe dk dCtk esjs firk Lo0 eksguflag th dks lqiqnZ fd;k rc ls mDrHkwfe ij eksgu flag th dk dCtk jgk vkSj muds LoxZokl ds ckn fnuakd 28-09-1989 ds i'pkr~ fooknxzLr Hkwfe esjs dCts&dk'r esa pyh vk jgh gSA fookfnr Hkwfe ij dksV&ckM+ esjs firk ds dk;Zdky esa cuok;s rFkk LoxZokl ds ckn Hkwfe esa ls lM+d fudyus ls nks Hkkx gks tkus ls esjs }kjk nksuksa Hkkxksa esa ckm.M~h dk fuekZ.k djok dj nks QkVdsa yxok;h x;h gSA fnuakd 24-08-1984 dks jftLV~h gks tkus ds ckn esa ineflag o mudk ifjokj tks/kiqj pyk x;k vkSj ogha ds fuoklh gks x,A blus ;g Hkh c;ku fn;k fd 24-08-1984 dks jftLV~h gksrs le; ineflag] mlds Hkzkrk peuflag] lk{kh HkS:flag o j?kqohj flag th >kyk bR;kfn ekStwn FksA eSa vius firk ds lkFk ml le; lkFk esa ekStwn FkkA fnuakd 24-08-1984 dks fodz; ds le; :0 8000@& ineflag us udn esjs firk eksgu flag ls izkIr dj jkf'k mldh iRuh cnu dqaoj dks nh FkhA bl xokg us fnuakd 24-08-1984 dks lEikfnr fodz; foys[k izn'kZ 1 fuokZpu {ks= ljnkjiqjk 184 Hkkx la0 5 dh izekf.kr izfr izn'kZ 2,] fuokZpu {ks= ljnkjiqjk 184 Hkkx 10 dh izekf.kr izfr izn'kZ 3,] ineflag ds ifjokj ds jk'kudkMZ dh izfr izn'kZ 4,] 'kadjflag ds ifjokj dkMZ dh izekf.kr izfr izn'kZ 5,] vtqZu flag ds ifjokj dkMZ dh izekf.kr izfr izn'kZ 6,] iapk;r ernkrk lwph dh izekf.kr izfr 1994 o 2004 izn'kZ 7,] iapk;r ernkrk lwph dh izekf.kr izfr izn'kZ 8, 1999] utjh uD'kk ekSdk dh izekf.kr izfr izn'kZ 9,] mi[k.M+ vf/kdkjh] U;k;ky; ukFk}kjk ds fu.kZ; dh izfr izn'kZ 10,] o rglhynkj dk;kZy; ds fu.kZ; dh izfr izn'kZ 11, dks iznf'kZr djok;k gSA viuh ftjg esa dgk gS fd jftLV~h esa ;g ugha fy[kk fd tehu xSj [kkrsnkjh dh gks] irk ughaA ;g xyr gS fd tehu esa Qly eSaus ugha cks;h gksA ;g lgh gS fd jftLV~h ds vk/kkj ij ukekUrj.k eSaus [kqyok;k FkkA ;g xyr gS fd nks o"kZ igys iVokjh esjs izHkko esa FkkA bl dkj.k ,d gh fnu esa lkjh dk;Zokgh gqbZ gksA ;g esjh tkudkjh esa ugha fd [kkrk ukekUrj.k ds oDr cnu dqoaj ds uke ij gksA fQj dgk fd dCtk esjk gS] ijUrq [kkrs esa cnudqaoj ds py jgh FkhA Mh0M0 2 HkS:flag o Mh0M0 3 Hkaojflag izn'kZ 1 fodz; i= ds fu"iknu ds oDr lk{kh nsus ds xokg gSa vkSj bl rF; dh iqf"V djrs gSA Mh0M0 4 I;kjsyky nsjkJh us d`f"k Hkwfe izn'kZ 1 ds tfj;s fodz; fd;s tkus dk M~kQV ineflag ds dgus ls djuk vkSj nLrkost ij , ls ch vius gLrk{kj gksuk c;ku fd;k gSA Mh0M0 5 j?kqohjflag fyfid us 1984 esa rglhy dk;kZy; esa dk;Zjr jgrs gq, ineflag dk rglhy esa vkuk o eksguflag dks tehu fodz; djus ckcr~ igpku ij gLrk{kj djuk c;ku fd;k gSA 9 & bl izdkj i=koyh ij miyC/k mHk;i{kksa dh lk{; ds foospu ls ;g rF; lansg ls ijs lkfcr gksrk gS fd okn dh in la0 2 nks esa of.kZr fodz; i= fnuakd 24-08-1984 dks okfn;k ds ifr ineflag }kjk fof/kor~ :i ls izfroknh Hkheflag ds firk eksgu flag ds i{k esa izfrQy jkf'k izkIr dj vius ?kj [kpZ o dkedkt gsrq :i;ksa dh vko;'drk dh iwfrZ gsrq fodz; i= fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k vkSj mldk iath;u mi & iath;u dk;kZy; esa fd;k x;k] ftldh lk[k ih0M0 1 Hkheflag ds le{k ih0M0 2 HkS:flag o ih0M0 3 Hkaoj flag us nhA gkaykfd okfn;k us xSj [kkrsnkjh Hkwfe dk fodz; djus dk vf/kdkj ineflag dks u gksus ls fodz; i= fujLr djus dk vuqrks"k pkgk gS] ysfdu ;g Lo;a fodzsrk inaeflag dk drZO; Fkk fd og xSj [kkrsnkjh dh tehu dks ugha csps vkSj izfroknh Hkheflag dk firk eksgu flag ,d ln~Hkkfod dzsrk Fkk] ftlus ln~Hkkfod :i ls vkjkth;kr dk iw.kZ izfrQy xokgku dh mifLFkfr esa vnk fd;k gS] ftls lk{khx.k us viuh lk{; ls iq"V fd;k gS vkSj mi & iath;u dk;kZy; esa ineflag us izfrQy izkIr dj izfroknh ds firk eksguflag ds i{k esa fodz; foys[k fu"ikfnr fd;k gSA eksguflag dk fodz; i= fu"iknu dh rkjh[k 24-08-1984 ls dCtk oknxzLr vkjkth ij pyk vk jgk Fkk vkSj mudh e`R;qijkar izfroknh Hkheflag dk dCtk pyk jgk gSA ftl ckcr~ fnuakd 01-02-2006 dks ekSdk ipkZ dh fjiksVZ izn'kZ 9, ls Hkh Li"V gS fd oDr fujh{k.k ekSdk dCtk izfroknh Hkheflag dk FkkA izfroknh dh vkSj ls iznf'kZr nLrkost& oksVjfyLV] jk'kudkMZ dh izfr;ksa ls Hkh okfn;k cnu dqaoj dk uke xzke iapk;r dh fuokZpu ukekoyh esa ugha gS vkSj jk'ku dkMZ Hkh tks/kiqj esa cus gq, gSA ,slh voLFkk esa miyC/k lexz lk{; ds foospu o fo'ys"k.k ls rFkk lEifr varj.k vf/kfu;e 1882 dh /kkjk 43 ds vuqlkj vc okfn;k dks izn'kZ 1 fodz; i= dks fujLr djkus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha jgrk gS vkSj ineflag }kjk oknxzLr fodz; i= fof/kor~ :i ls izfroknh Hkheflag ds firk eksguflag ds gd esa izfrQy izkIr dj fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj okfn;k vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr U;k; n`"Vkar 1988 2 McY;w ,y ,u jsosU;w LVsV vkWQ jkt0cuke ljiap] xzke iapk;r lqugkl gLrxr izjd.k ds rF;ksa ij ykxw ugha gksrk gS] D;ksafd mDr U;k; n`"Vkar E;wVs'ku vihy ds laca/k esa is'k fd;k x;k gS] tks gLrxr rF;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ls pLik ugha gksrk gSA izfroknh vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr U;k; n`"Vkarksa dk Hkh eSaus llEeku voyksdu fd;k vkSj mlesa izfrikfnr fl)kar ls eSa iw.kZr% lknj lger gwaA bl izdkj fook|d la0 1 ,d okfn;k ds fo:) o izfroknh ds i{k esa rFkk fook|d la[;k 2 izfroknh ds i{k esa o okfn;k ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 16. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.2.2008, the plaintiff Badan Kanwar filed an appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Nathdwara. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.2.2008, the plaintiff Badan Kanwar filed an appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Nathdwara. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, the learned first appellate court dismissed the first appeal with the following observations:- ^^6 & izfroknh dh vkSj ls ekSf[kd lk{; esa Mh0M0 1 Hkheflag] Mh0M 2 HkS:flag] Mh0M0 3 Hkaojflag] Mh0M0 4 I;kjsyky ,oa Mh0M0 5 j?kqohjflag dks ijhf{kr djok;k x;k rFkk nLrkosth lk{; esa fodz; foys[k dh izekf.kr izfr izn'kZ 1,] fuokZpu {ks= ljnkjiqjk dh izekf.kr izfr;sa izn'kZ 2, ,oa 3,] ineflag ds ifjokj dh jk'kudkMZ dh izfr izn'kZ 4,] 'kadjflag ds jk'ku dkMZ dh izekf.kr izfr izn'kZ 5,] vtqZuflag ds ifjokj ds jk'ku dkM+Z dh izekf.kr izfr izn'kZ 6,] iapk;r ernkrk lwph dh izekf.kr izfr;s izn'kZ 7, ,oa 8,] ekSdk ipkZ utjh uD'kk dh izekf.kr izfr izn'kZ 9,] mi[kaM U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh izfr izn'kZ 10,] rglhynkj ds fu.kZ; dh izfr izn'kZ 11, iznf'kZr djok;sA 13 & v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; esa bu nksuksa gh rufd;ksa dks vihykFkhZ oknh ds fo:) fuf.kZr dh gSA tgka rd rF;ksa dh fLFkfr gS] fookfnr Hkwfe vihykFkhZ ds ifr dks 1975 esa vkoafVr dh xbZ Fkh ysfdu mls [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj ugha fn;s x;s FksA bldk dkj.k ;g Fkk fd rRdkyhu jktLo fof/k ds vuqlkj 10 o"kZ iwoZ [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj ugha fn;s tkrs FksA lu~ 1984 esa vihykFkhZ ds ifr }kjk tfj;s iathd`r fodz; i= ;g Hkwfe izR;FkhZ ds firk dks cSpku dh xbZ FkhA fookfnr fodz; i= izn'kZ 1 gSA izn'kZ 1 esa vihykFkhZ ds ifr us ;g mYys[k fd;k gS fd xzke dYyk [ksM+h lfdZy xqatksy] rglhy ukFk}kjk esa [kljk la[;k 184@1 jdck 4 ch?kk Hkwfe fdLe catj yxkuh : 3-20 fLFkr gS tks esjs [kkrs] vkf/kiR; ,ao fgr dh gksdj mDr Hkwfe vkcknh ls djhc ,d fdyksehVj nwj rFkk eq[; lM+d ls Hkh dkQh nwjh ij fLFkr gSA mDr Hkwfe iFkjhyh gksdj vd`f"k ;ksX;] flQZ eos'kh pjus yk;d gSA mDr Hkwfe esa vU; fdlh dk dksbZ LoRo] fgr ;k vf/kdkj ugha gSA pwafd eq>s vius ?kj [kpZ ds fy, :i;ksa dh vko';drk gS blfy, :0 8000-00 esa ;g Hkwfe csp jgk gwaA fodz; i= esa vkxs mlus crk;k gS fd fodz; i= eSa lqu le> dj LoLFk fpRr] fLFkj cqf)] fcuk fdlh M+j] ncko] /kedh ds iwjk izfrQy :0 8000-00 udn izkIr dj lEikfnr fd;k gSA 14 & ;kfu mijksDr ys[k ls ;g Li"V gS fd vihykFkhZ ds ifr us vius [kkrs dh Hkwfe crkrs gq, izR;FkhZ ds firk dks tehu cSph rFkk izfrQy Lo:i :0 8000-00 dh jkf'k izkIr dhA 15 & fodz; ds i'pkr~ lu~ 1993 esa vihykFkhZ ds ifr ineflag dks bl tehu ds laca/k esa [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkj izkIr gks x;s vkSj mlds 11 o"kZ i'pkr~ 2004 esa vihykFkhZ ds ifr ineflag dh e`R;q gqbZA i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls mijksDr lHkh rF; fufoZokfnr gS rFkk bu rF;ksa ds laca/k esa izR;FkhZ }kjk Hkh dksbZ [kaM+u vihy esa cgl ds nkSjku Hkh ugha fd;k x;k gSA 20 & mijksDr lHkh uthjksa rFkk /kkjk 43 V~kaLQj vkWQ izksiVhZ ,DV ds fl)kUrksa ,oa bl izdj.k esa miyC/k lk{; dks ns[krs gq, ;g Li"V gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe ij ineflag 1975 ls dkfct Fkk rFkk fQj 1984 esa bl Hkwfe dk fodz; fd;k vkSj ;g fodz; mlus vius [kkrs dh Hkwfe crkrs gq, fd;k rFkk mldk izfrQy 8 gtkj :i;s Hkh mlus izkIr fd;sA gekjh fouez jk; esa izR;FkhZ dk firk ,d lnHkkfod dzsrk Fkk ftlus ln~HkkoukiwoZd izfrQy vnk dj ;g Hkwfe dz; dh FkhA ineflag ds yEcs dCts vkSj mlds dFkuksa dks ns[krs gq, Hkwfe ineflag dh u gks bl laca/k esa lansg djus dk dksbZ vk/kkj izR;FkhZ ds firk ds ikl ugh FkkA izn'kZ 1 fodz; i= ds ys[k dks ns[krs gq, ;g Li"V gS fd Hkwfe dh vf/kdkfjrk ds laca/k esa inxflag us xyr dFku o /kks[kk djrs gq, izfrQy izkIr dj Hkwfe dk fodz; fd;k gSA ,sls esa bl izdj.k esa izR;FkhZ /kkjk 43 V~kalQj vkWQ izksiVhZ ,DV dk ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vc vihykFkhZ dks lu 1984 esa mlds ifr }kjk csph xbZ Hkwfe ds fodz; i= ij vkifRr djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA^^ 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case including the judgments cited at Bar by the learned counsel for the parties. 18. In the present case admittedly the sale deed Exhibit 1 was executed on 24.8.1984 by late Shri Padam Singh, who is husband of plaintiff, in favour of late Shri Mohan Singh, who is father of defendant. The said registered sale deed has not been challenged on the ground that it was executed without consideration or there is no signature of late Padam Singh on sale deed Exhibit 1, but same is challenged on a vague term pleaded in Column No.(2) of the suit by the plaintiff that :- ^^ftls izfroknh Hkhe flag us ,d QthZ nLrkost tks ineflag firk bUnzflag th ds uke ls eksguflag firk lksguflag pkSgku] jktiwr fuoklh cM+ykokyh dYyk[ksM+h ds uke ij gksdj fnuakd 24-08-1984 dks fodz; iath;u izLrqr dj izfroknh us vius firk ds uke fodz; i= okfn;k ds [kkrs dh Hkwfe ij vius uke xSj dkuwuh rjhds ls rglhynkj] ukFk}kjk dh feyhHkxr dj djok fy;kA^^ 19. The main contention of the plaintiff is that late Padam Singh had no right to execute the said sale deed about the said land because he had not obtained khatedari rights and at the time of execution of sale deed, Ex.1, late Padam Singh was Gair Khatedar, so sale deed is void, but the plaintiff had failed to prove in the trial court that due to said sale, how her rights were infringed. 20. It is admitted fact in this case that said land was self acquired property of late Shri Padam Singh and according to document Ex.3 Jamabandi which was produced by the appellant-plaintiff herself during the trial in the trial court, after execution of sale deed Ex.1 late Shri Padam Singh obtained khatedari right over the suit land in his life time. Before getting khatedari right, neither late Sri Padam Singh raised this objection regarding that he is gair khatedar nor the plaintiff or her son raised objection that due to gair khatedari, the sale deed Ex.1 is void. Then after death of Shri Padam Singh and after expiry of period of 22 years of execution of sale deed Ex.1, the plaintiff has no right to raise any objection. 21. Then after death of Shri Padam Singh and after expiry of period of 22 years of execution of sale deed Ex.1, the plaintiff has no right to raise any objection. 21. On perusal of Ex.1 sale deed which was executed by late Padam Singh in favour of respondent's father late Shri Mohan Singh in which he himself stated that :- ^^tks fd xzke dYyk[ksM+h vkcknh gYdk ls if'pe fn'kk esa ekStk dYyk[ksM+h oM+ykokyh iVokj lfdZy xqatksy rglhy ukFk}kjk ftyk mn;iqj esa fLFkr [kljk la[;k 184@1 jdck 4 fo?kk Hkwfe fd fdLe catj yxku 3-20 iSlk fLFkr gS tks esjs [kkrs] vkf/kiR; ,ao fgr dh gksdj mDr Hkwfe eq>s Lora= :i ls gLrkUrfjr djus dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj izkIr gSa mDr Hkwfe vkcknh ls djhc 1 fdyksehVj nwj rFkk eq[; lM+d ls Hkh dkQh nwjh ij fLFkr gS mDr Hkwfe flQZ iRFkjhyh gksdj vd`f"k ;ksX; gS flQZ eos'kh pjus yk;d gS mDr Hkwfe esa vU; fdlh dk dksbZ LoRo fgr o vf/kdkj ugha gSA^^ 22. It proves that late Shri Padam Singh shows that he is khatedar of said land. He did not disclose that the said land is Gair khatedari land. 23. On perusal of statement of DW-4 Pyare Lal, who is writer of Ex.1 sale deed in his cross-examination he clearly stated that :- ^^eSaus ftl fnu nLrkost fy[kk ml fnu ine flag ds }kjk fodz; dh tkus okyh Hkwfe dh [kkrs dh udy eSaus ugha ns[khA ine flag th ,d Lyhi ysdj vk;s ftlds vk/kkj ij eSaus 'kiFk i= is'k fd;kA nLrkost tSlk eq>s i{kdkj crkrs gSa oSlk fy[krs gSA ;fn dksbZ nLrkost xSj [kkrsnkjh dk gks rks eSa ugha fy[krk gwaA vt [kqn dgk fd ml oDr jftLV~h ds lkFk udy is'k djuk vfuok;Z ugha FkkA^^ 24. So all these facts prove that late Shri Mohan Singh, who is father of respondent-defendant purchased the said land by way of sale deed Ex.1 bonafidely and he is bonafide purchaser and he paid consideration against the said sale to late Shri Padam Singh and after receiving the consideration, late Shri Padam Singh executed sale deed Ex.1 in favour of late Shri Mohan Singh and according to legal procedure by the competent authority, it was registered. 25. 25. In the examination in chief, DW-1 Bheem Singh, the respondent clearly stated that at the time of execution of sale deed Ex.1, late Shri Padam Singh received consideration of said land and then after late Shri Padam Singh gave that amount to his wife plaintiff Badan Kanwar, but not a single question has been asked to DW-1 respondent about his above averment, so in the cross-examination, this fact stands unrubtted, so it is also proved that at the time of execution of sale deed Ex.1, the plaintiff was also present and she received the consideration amount of sale vide sale deed Ex.1, so contention of appellant-plaintiff that the said sale deed Ex.1 was not in her knowledge and first time in September, 2005 when she came to her village, then she knew about the said sale, is not tenable. In these circumstances, the learned trial court rightly held that the suit is time barred and issue No.4 has rightly been decided in favour of defendant and against the plaintiff. 26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Pyare v. Ram Narain and others reported in AIR 1985 SC 694 has held that:- "U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (1 of 1951), Section 137(2) before amendment by Act 21 of 1962 - Sirdar effecting sale of land in respect of which he had deposited prescribed amount for acquiring Bhumidhari rights on very date of deposit, thus erroneously representing as to his authority to effect sale - Transferee is entitled to benefit of section 43 of T.P. Act - Sale cannot be set aside at the instance of son of sirdar, he being not bona fide transferee in good faith (Transfer of Property Act (1882), Section 43). 1971 ALL WR (HC) 32, Reversed." 27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee v. Bannama (D) by LRs. 1971 ALL WR (HC) 32, Reversed." 27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee v. Bannama (D) by LRs. reported in 2014 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 397 (S.C.) has held that :- "Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Section 43 - Transfer by unauthorised person who subsequently acquires interest in property transferred - Doctrine of feeding the estoppel - The doctrine is based on the principle of law of estoppel - It simply provides that when a person by fraudulent or erroneous representation transfers certain immovable property, claiming himself to be the owner of such property, then such transfer will subsequently operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property during which the contract of transfer subsists - In other words, where a vendor sells without title in the property, but subsequently acquires title then a right accrues to the purchaser to claim interest in the said property and it automatically goes in favour of the transferor." 28. In view of above discussion and upon perusal of the impugned judgment and decrees of both the courts below and evidence and record produced by the parties also, this Court is satisfied that no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in the present second appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff Badan Kanwar. In the circumstances of the case, the findings arrived at by both the courts below about execution of sale deed Ex.1 and about the possession of the respondent-defendant over the said land as well as bona fide purchaser of the respondent-defendant's father, this finding of fact cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. The finding of fact arrived at by learned both the courts below are correct and based on relevant and cogent evidence laid by the parties before the courts below. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal filed by appellant-plaintiff Badan Kanwar, therefore, the same being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage. 29. This Court finds no force in the present second appeal filed by the appellant Badan Kanwar and the same is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. 30. Accordingly, this second appeal filed by the appellant plaintiff is dismissed. 31. For the same reason, the misc. 29. This Court finds no force in the present second appeal filed by the appellant Badan Kanwar and the same is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. 30. Accordingly, this second appeal filed by the appellant plaintiff is dismissed. 31. For the same reason, the misc. application filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. is also required to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. 32. No order as to costs. 33. Copy of this judgment be sent to both the courts below.