Allowed

Smt Lachho Devi and Ors. v. Bor and Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Jan 2017CW/3242/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court discarded a relief conferred by the Revenue Board granting ancestral property share to successors who executed a registered relinquishment deed. The Bench quashed the revenue order declaring such successors entitled to 1/3rd share, holding that a registered deed accepting share extinguishes further claims.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Board of Revenue and order of Assistant Collector quashed and set aside; suit dismissed.

Smt Lachho Devi and Ors. Vs Bor and Ors. — Succession and Inheritance | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3242 / 2000

¶4

1- Jherh yPNhnsoh ifRu Lo0 enuyky tkfr dkyjk mez 40 o"kZ fuoklh dkaek rglhy dkek ftyk HkjiqjA

¶5

2- xhrk iRuh Jh eqdqV fcgkjh vk;q 22 o"kZ iq=h Lo0 enuyky fuoklh HkjriqjA

¶6

3- vk’kk iq=h Lo0 enuyky mez 15 o"kZ

¶7

4- ;ksxs’k iq= Lo0 enuyky mez 13 o"kZ

¶8

5- jktjkuh iq=h Lo0 enuyky mez 11 o"kZ

¶9

6- nsohflag iq= Lo0 enuyky mez 7 o"kZ

¶10

7- ukgjflag iq= Lo0 enuyky mez 5 o"kZ

¶11

8- xkSjh iq= Lo0 enuyky mez 2 o"kZ

¶12

fuoklh dkeka rglhy dakek ftyk Hkjriqj vihykFkhZ la0 3 ls 8 izkd`frd laj{kd ekrk Jherh yPNhnsohA

¶13

;kphx.k

¶14

fo:)

¶15

1- jktLo e.My jktLFkku] vtesj }kjk fuca/kdA

¶16

2- eq0 pOnkj csok jkeLo:i

¶17

3- xksiky izlkn iq= jkeLo:i

¶18

4- jk/kkjkuh iq=h jkeLo:i

¶19

5- dsljnsoh mQZ dqlqe iq=h jkeLo:i

¶20

6- chuknsoh iq=h jkeLo:i

¶21

lHkh tkfr dykj fuoklh dkaek rglhy dkaek ftyk Hkjriqj

¶22

7- eq0 nqxkZnsoh iRuh jktiky

¶23

8- fouksn iq= jktiky

¶24

tkfr dkyjk fuoklh cgjkiqjk ftyk vgenkoknA

¶25

izR;FkhZx.kA

¶26

__________________________________________________ Counsel For Petitioner(s) : Rajeev Surana

¶27

Counsel For Respondent(s) : Manoj Pareek

¶28

(2 of 5)

¶29

[CW-3242/2000]

¶30

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Judgment

¶31

02/01/2017

¶32

The present petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners being legal representatives of Late Shri Madan Lal interalia challenging the order dated 7-4-2000 passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the judgment and decree dated 20-5-1995 passed by the Assistant Collector, Kama, District Bharatpur.

¶33

Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the father of respondents-plaintiff Late Shri Ram Swaroop, son of Late Shri Mangtu Ram. Plaintiff – Ramswaroop was having two other brothers namely Madan Lal and Raj Pal.

¶34

Said Ram Swaroop being son of Late Shri Mangtu Ram was a successor of the properties of his ancestors, who after taking his share from the ancestral property, went to live in Mathura. In view thereof he had executed an agreement/relinquish deed dated 17^th May, 1958, which was got registered before the Sub-Registrar, District Bharatpur. By virtue of the said deed dated 17^th May, 1958, Ramswaroop accepted having taken his share from the property and renounced any further right/claim in the ancestral property. After about 26 years of execution of the deed aforesaid, said Ram Swaroop filed a revenue suit before the Assistant Collector, Kama interalia claiming his (1/3rd) share in the ancestral property. The said suit came to be decreed by the Court of Assistant Collector, vide order dated 20^th March, 1995 declaring Ram Swaroop to be owner-khatedar tenant of 1/3rd share in the

¶35

(3 of 5)

¶36

[CW-3242/2000]

¶37

land of Late Shri Mangtu Ram situated in khasra No.6544/3-09, Kasba Kama, District Bharatpur.

¶38

Being aggrieved with the said order, defendant-Madan Lal filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority Camp – Bharatpur, which came to be allowed vide order dated 7-1-1997. The Learned Revenue Appellate Authority while allowing the appeal had considered the factum of registered agreement/release deed dated 17-5-1958 and held that the plaintiff Ram Swaroop having accepted to have received his share in lieu of his rights in ancestral property by way of registered document, has no right to lay any claim over the ancestral property.

¶39

Challenging the said order dated 07.01.1997, plaintiff - Ram Swaroop preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer which came to be allowed vide order on 7-4-2000. The Learned members of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer while allowing the appeal filed by the LR’s of Ram Swaroop has held that the Ram Swaroop and his LR’s were entitled to 1/3rd share in the ancestral property/property of Mangtu.

¶40

Assailing the said order dated 7-4-2000 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, the petitioners herein, being LR’s of Madan Lal (Original Defendant), filed the present writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶41

Mr. Rajeev Saini; appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is illegal and contrary to law inasmuch as the Board of Revenue, having noticed the factum of registered deed dated 7-5-1958; has not at all considered the effect thereof. He further argued that the

¶42

(4 of 5)

¶43

[CW-3242/2000]

¶44

learned Revenue Appellate Authority had decided the lis between the parties essentially on the basis of the said registered deed, as such it was incumbent upon the members of Board of Revenue to have at least delve upon the findings and reasoning given by the Revenue Appellate Authority, if they decided to overturn the order under challenge.

¶45

On the other hand, Mr.Manoj Pareek learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material and orders available on record. I am of the considered view that the plaintiff's suit was liable to be rejected. The undeniable fact which emanates from the registered document namely agreement/declaration deed dated 17-5-1958 is that the plaintiff Ram Swaroop had already taken his share from the ancestral property. The said fact of he having received his due, is also evident from the Will executed by Smt. Kishanpyari, his mother, placed with the writ petition as Annexure-2 wherein she has categorically stated that the Ram Swaroop has been given his due share in the property.

¶47

The revenue suit filed by the plaintiff Ram Swaroop is also on record in the form of Annexure R-4 which has been filed by none other than Ram Swaroop himself. A perusal of the plaint filed by Ram Swaroop shows that there is not even a whisper of execution of registered declaration/deed dated 17-5-1958, much less a challenge to the same.

¶48

(5 of 5)

¶49

[CW-3242/2000]

¶50

According to the opinion of this Court until and unless the registered document dated 17-05-1998 is quashed or set aside by a competent civil court, Ram Swaroop or his heirs cannot stake their claim in the ancestral property, as his right does not exist or persist in the eye of law.

¶51

In view of the above, I am of the considered view that Ram Swaroop, the plaintiff having acknowledged to have got his share in the ancestral property by way of registered deed, has no illegal right to claim his share in the ancestral property and hence the suit filed by him was liable to be rejected. The Learned Board of Revenue has cursirily held that Ram Swaroop is entitled 1/3rd of the share in ancestral property, without considering the effect of the registered document dated 17-5-1958.

¶52

The order impugned, passed by the Board of Revenue Ajmer as well as the order dated 20-5-1995 passed by the Assistant Collector, Kama, are therefore quashed and set aside.

¶53

As a result, the writ petition succeeds. The suit filed by the plaintiff Ram Swaroop is dismissed.

¶54

No order as to costs.

¶55

Anu/29

Smt Lachho Devi and Ors. v. Bor and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lachho Devi and Ors. v. Bor and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Lal Jatav Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dr T C Sadasukhi Vs Medical Council of India Ors.

Sunil Arora Vs State Dep of Education Ors.

Vishal Machchhi Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Yusuf @ Isup and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Kumer Singh Awana Vs J v v N Ltd. andORS