Dismissed

Sardarmal v. Pukhraj

Rajasthan HC14 Dec 2021CW/15447/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an appeal regarding a property suit. Despite arguments that the respondent's patta was irregularly issued, the Court refused interim injunction to protect the title holder's rights unless the patta is legally set aside.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition fails and the stay petition is disposed of.

Sardarmal Vs Pukhraj — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[CW-15447/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶4

JODHPUR

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15447/2021

¶6

Sardarmal S/o Kaluji Purohit, Aged About 55 Years, Fungani, Tehsil And District Sirohi, (Raj.).

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Pukhraj S/o Kaluji Purohit, Aged About 58 Years, Fungani, Tehsil And District Sirohi, (Raj.).

¶10

Smt. Subati Devi W/o Pukhraj Purohit, Aged About 50 Years, Fungani, Tehsil And District Sirohi, (Raj.).

¶11

Gram Panchayat Fungani, Tehsil And District Sirohi, (Raj.) Through Its Sarpanch.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Panwar

¶14

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶15

Order

¶16

14/12/2021

¶17

By way of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.09.2021 passed by learned District Judge, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate Court’) whereby petitioner’s appeal No.7/2021 filed against the order dated 13.08.2021 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) has been rejected.

¶18

The facts appertain are that the plaintiff (petitioner herein) had instituted a suit for declaration and seeking mandatory and permanent injunction against the respondents praying that they may not interfere in the possession, he has purportedly been holding for the last 50 years.

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CW-15447/2021]

¶21

It was also prayed in the suit aforesaid that he be declared to be owner of the land and the Gram Panchayat be directed to issue patta to him. 4. The trial Court so also the appellate Court have concurrently held that the defendant No.1 (respondent herein) is having a patta granted by the competent authority in his favour and thus, no injunction can be granted against the title holder of the land. They have also held that the patta has remained unchallenged and thus, no injunction can be granted in petitioner’s favour. 5. Mr. Rajesh Panwar, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards Annex.3 & Annex.4 and pointed out that the competent authority has given a report that the patta issued to the defendant No.1 has been issued while keeping the statutory provisions in abeyance and without following the process of law.

¶22

It is also argued that the defendant No.1 had fraudulently obtained the patta and that the competent authority had ignored the fact that the petitioner was having possession over the subject land, while granting patta to defendant No.1.

¶23

It was also contended that the land which is in petitioner’s possession is not the same land for which patta has been issued to defendant No.1.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, including the orders impugned, this Court finds that both the Courts have concurrently found that the defendant No.1 is having a patta in his favour.

¶25

Maybe, the petitioner is having possession over the subject land but no interim relief at this juncture can be granted in his favour ignoring the rights of a title holder – defendant No.1.

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-15447/2021]

¶28

This Court is not much convinced with the arguments of Mr. Panwar that the Courts below ought to have granted injunction in favour of the petitioner otherwise the whole purpose of his suit would be frustrated and that the authorities have reported that the patta to the defendant No.1 has been irregularly issued. 11. According to this Court, unless such patta is set aside or is subject matter of challenge before the competent authority, the same cannot be doubted or ignored.

¶29

Writ petition, therefore, fails.

¶30

Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶32

14-Amar/-

Sardarmal v. Pukhraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sardarmal v. Pukhraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Leeluram Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalpit Jakhar Vs State of Rajasthan

Nikhil Kumar Vs Branch Manager, State Bank of India

Shri Shaitan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sachin Memorial Paramedical College Vs State of Rajasthan

R.D. Singh Memorial Paramedical Mahavidhalaya Vs the State of Rajasthan