Dismissed

Mamta Godara v. Prema Ram

Rajasthan HC16 Feb 2021CR/57/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a civil revision petition. The petitioner challenged the trial court's rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, arguing incorrect valuation vitiated the suit involving partitioned property. The High Court held the trial court was correct; no partition was sought as the plaintiff claimed only declaration of an already partitioned share.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition filed by Mamta Godara against the order rejecting the application under O. VII R. 11 CPC was dismissed.

Mamta Godara Vs Prema Ram — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 57/2020

¶3

Mamta Godara W/o Ramchandra Godara, Aged About 54 Years, R/o House No. 271, Hari Ram Ji Mandir Ke Pass, Ward No. 34, Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Prema Ram S/o Indra Ram, R/o Sinwa, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur (Raj.)

¶7

Sugna Ram S/o Jag Ram, R/o Sinwa, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur (Raj.) (Since Deceased)

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Saraswat. For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶11

Order

¶12

16/02/2021

¶13

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.2.2020 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Didwana, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

¶14

The suit was filed by the plaintiff – respondent inter alia for cancellation of the sale deed dated 1.12.2017 to the extent of his share, declaration, permanent injunction and partition.

¶15

It was inter alia claimed in the plaint that the property was purchased on 17.5.1982 in the name of defendant No.1 while the parties were in joint family and that the same was purchased out of joint family funds. The properties were partitioned on 23.2.1984, however, as the property in question was purchased on

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CR-57/2020]

¶18

17.5.1982 in the name of defendant No.1, who was Karta Khandan ¼drkZ [kkunku½ and sale deed was executed on 1.12.2017, wherein, the share of the plaintiff was also transferred, the same to the extent of plaintiff’s share was void. Submissions were also made that by way of partition, which has already entered into between the parties, the property indicated in Schedule-A came to the share of the plaintiff. Based on the said submissions, relief was sought for cancellation of the sale deed, declaration and permanent injunction.

¶19

An application was filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC inter alia indicating that the suit has been filed for cancellation of the sale deed, permanent injunction and partition, the same has been valued at Rs.2,75,000/- and court fee of Rs.18,750/- has been paid, whereas the suit property was valued at Rs.5,41,000/-, for which, no court fee has been paid and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected.

¶20

The application was contested by the plaintiff.

¶21

The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the suit was for declaration and not for cancellation and based on the said aspect, rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the petitioner had made submissions regarding the valuation of the suit being incorrect, inasmuch as, the plaintiff has sought several reliefs and each relief was required to be valued separately and once the valuation was done properly, the trial court, where the suit was filed, would have lost its jurisdiction and as such the rejection of the application is not justified.

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[CR-57/2020]

¶25

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

¶26

The plaintiff based on the submissions noticed hereinbefore had claimed the following reliefs:-

¶27

“14- ;g gS fd oknh dh izkFkZuk fuEu fyf[kr gS%&

¶28

¼d½ ;g gS fd izfroknh la[;k 01 }kjk izfroknh la[;k 02 ds i{k esa fu’ikfnr nLrkost foØ; i= la[;k 344@2017 fnukad 01-122017 dks okn i= ds utjh uD”kk vuqlqph ^^v** es nf”kZr oknh dh tk;xk fd gn rd “kqU; nLrkost dh ?kks’k.kk fd fMØh cgd oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k ikfjr Qjek;h tkosA

¶29

¼[k½ ;g gS fd okn i= ds layXu utjh uD”kk vuqlqph ^^v** esa nf”kZr uki o iM+kSl dh vkcknh Hkqfe dks oknh ds LokfeRo fd ? kksf’kr djus fd fMØh cgd oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k ikfjr Qjek;h tkosA

¶30

¼x½ ;g gS fd okn i= ds layXu utjh uD”kk vuqlqph ^^v** esa nf”kZr uki iM+kSl fd vkcknh Hkwfe dks oknh fd fof/kor caVokjk dh Hkqfe ?kksf’kr fd;s tkus dh fMØh cgd oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k ikfjr Qjek;h tkosA

¶31

¼?k½ ;g gS fd LFkkbZ fu’ks/kkKk dh fMØh cgd oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k bl vk”k; dh ikfjr Qjek;h tkos fd izfroknhx.k oknh dh tk;xk tks fd utjh uD”kk vuqlqph v esa nf”kZr gS esa fdlh Hkh izdkj fd n[kyvankth u rks Lo;a djs ,oe u gh vius fdlh ,tsUV o izfrfuf/k ls djkosa ,oe LFkkbZ fu’ks/kkKk fd fMØh cgd oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k bl vk”k; dh tkjh Qjek;h tkos fd izfroknh la[;k 02 foØ; i= fnukad 01-12-2017 ds vk/kkj ij oknh fd mDr tk;xk dk fdlh Hkh izdkj ls vUrj.k] foØ; gLrkUrj.k] cD”kh”k jge vknh ugha djsaA

¶32

¼M½ ;g gS fd vU; vuqrks’k tks U;k;ky; oknh ds i{k esa le>s fnyk;k tkosA”

¶33

A perusal of the plaint averments and the reliefs claimed clearly indicates that the plaintiff had indicated that the property

¶34

(4 of 4)

¶35

[CR-57/2020]

¶36

in question had already been partitioned between the parties and he indicated his share in Schedule-A and based on the said submissions, sought the reliefs of cancellation of the sale deed to the extent of his share, declaration of his ownership and further declaration that the land possessed by him under Schedule-A was part of his partitioned land and permanent injunction.

¶37

The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that as relief of partition was sought, valuation even to the extent of plaintiff’s share was required to be added to the valuation already made, cannot be accepted in view of the relief, which has been claimed i.e. declaration regarding the fact that the plaintiff was already in possession of duly partitioned property indicated in Schedule-A, he had not sought any partition as his case was that the property already stood partitioned between the parties and he was already in possession of property, which came to his share post partitioned and as such the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner in the revision petition, though apparently not raised before the trial court, has no substance.

¶38

The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶39

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶40

9-Sumit/-

Mamta Godara v. Prema Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Godara v. Prema Ram

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

Ram Pal and Ors. Vs Shivji Ram and Ors.

Singara Singh Vs Kashmir Kaur

Harji Lal Alika Vs Smt. Sharda

Puran Ram Vs Jot Ram

Lrs of Dr. Krishna Kumar and Anr. Vs Ranjeet Singh Kumpawat

Mangilal Vs Bhalla Ram