Dismissed

Bhabhoot Mal v. Kanhiya Lal and Ors.

Rajasthan HC18 Jan 2021CFA/675/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application by an applicant seeking impleadment in a civil appeal. The court held that the applicant acquired no rights as the seller possessed no title, as the government patta was cancelled decades ago and a new patta was subsequently issued to the respondents. The appeal was also dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Application for impleadment dismissed; appeal dismissed as infructuous.

Bhabhoot Mal Vs Kanhiya Lal and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[CFA-675/2004]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 675/2004

¶5

Bhabhoot Mal aged 54 yearse, son of Shri Shankar Lal, Resident of Jawal, Tehsil & District Sirohi.

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Kanhiya Lal S/o Chamnaji,

¶9

Naina Ram S/o Kanhiya Lal,

¶10

Saka W/o Kanhiya Lal,

¶11

Pura Ram S/o Chhogaji,

¶12

R/o Jawal, Tehsil & District Sirohi.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Sharma. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Puneet Parihar.

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶16

Judgment

¶17

18/01/2021

¶18

The matter comes up on an application filed by the applicant under Order I Rule 10, XXII Rule 10 r/w Section 151 CPC, interalia, with the submissions that the applicant Smt. Hiri Devi by a registered sale deed dated 25.03.2019 has purchased the suit property from the appellant-plaintiff and therefore, the applicant be impleaded as appellant to the present appeal.

¶19

On filing of the above application, the respondents also filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking dismissal of the appeal as having been rendered infructuous with the submission that as the suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant seeking possession of the suit property and the trial court held that the patta issued in favour of the plaintiff had already been cancelled on 27.11.1978, which order was never challenged, the plaintiff-

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[CFA-675/2004]

¶22

appellant had nothing to transfer through the said sale deed and once, the document has been executed in this regard, the appeal itself deserves to be dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶23

Learned counsel for the applicant attempted to make submissions that though the order dated 27.11.1978 cancelling the patta of the plaintiff-appellant has not been challenged, a bare look at the said order would indicate that the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, the cancellation is of no avail. However, it was also fairly pointed out that during pendency of the present appeal, the Panchayat Samiti pursuant to the order passed in SBCWP No.75/2004, decided on 04.09.2006 filed by the respondent, has ordered for issuance of patta qua the disputed land to the respondent, pursuant thereto, the patta has been issued to the respondent under provisions of Rule 156/157 of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and that the said order granting patta to the respondent and the grant of patta has also not been questioned either by the plaintiff-appellant or the applicant.

¶24

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶25

Admittedly, the suit was filed for possession as the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property in the year 2002, it has come on record before the trial court that the patta issued in favour of the plaintiff had been cancelled on 27.11.1978 (Ex.A/14) and based on the said aspect, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court.

¶26

The present appeal was admitted and parties were directed to maintain status quo with respect to the property in dispute. However, pursuant to the direction given by this Court in a writ

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[CFA-675/2004]

¶29

petition filed by the respondent, it appears that the patta has been issued in favour of the respondent as indicated by the learned counsel for the appellant himself.

¶30

From the above events, it is apparent that at the time when the property in question was purportedly transferred to the applicant Smt. Hiri Devi, the plaintiff was neither in possession of the suit property nor had any title as the patta already stood cancelled way-back in the year 1978 and subsequently, qua the suit property, a patta had already been issued in favour of the respondent, which patta also has not been questioned by the appellant/applicant. In view thereof, there is apparently no right of the applicant to seek impleadment.

¶31

Besides the above, the provision of Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 prohibits transfer of 'a mere right to sue' which only appears to have been transferred, in sum and substance, by the plaintiff to the applicant.

¶32

In view of the above fact situation, the application filed by the applicant has no substance, the same is,therefore, dismissed.

¶33

Further in view of the subsequent events as noticed hereinbefore, wherein already qua the suit property a patta has been issued to the respondents, the appeal itself has been rendered infructuous, the same is, therefore, dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶34

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶35

110-Rmathur/-

Bhabhoot Mal v. Kanhiya Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhabhoot Mal v. Kanhiya Lal 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

Smt Pushpa Vs State

Ranu Singh Vs the Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Chandrakala Vs Madan Lal Rankawat

Mohd Ayub Vs Abdul Wahid

Lrs.of Abhay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohan Singh @ Sohan Lal Gehlot Vs Nagar Nigam, Jodhpur