Quashed

Ramgopal v. Chandmal

Rajasthan HC25 Oct 2021CW/6112/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suit regarding property rights, the Revenue Appellate Authority dismissed an appeal as abated because respondents had died before the appeal was filed, ignoring a subsequent application for substitution of legal representatives. The High Court quashed the dismissal, directing the Authority to proceed with the appeal after considering the substitution application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.10.2020 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority is quashed; directed to consider substitution application and proceed with appeal.

Ramgopal Vs Chandmal — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 8)

¶2

[CW-6112/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6112/2021

¶5

Ramgopal S/o Shri Bhagwan Ram, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Chandmal S/o Champa Lal, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶9

Ramswaroop S/o Champa Lal, Aged About 57 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶10

Shree Gopal S/o Champa Lal, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶11

Surajmal S/o Champa Lal, Aged About 53 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶12

Om Kanwar D/o Champa Lal, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶13

Basanti Devi D/o Champa Lal, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶14

Sampati Devi D/o Champa Lal, Aged About 46 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶15

Kailash Chand S/o Radhakishan, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶16

Ramkishore S/o Radhakishan, Aged About 63 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶17

Ramvallabh S/o Radhakishan, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶18

Bhagwati Devi W/o Radhakishan, Aged About 83 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶19

Bidami W/o Ghishu Lal, Aged About 78 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶20

Kamalkishore S/o Ghishu Lal, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶21

Dinesh S/o Ghishu Lal, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste

¶22

(2 of 8)

¶23

[CW-6112/2021]

¶24

Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶25

Sanjay S/o Ghishu Lal, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶26

Subhash Chand S/o Ghishu Lal, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶27

Vimal Kumar S/o Birdhi Chand, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶28

Kanta Devi D/o Birdhi Chand, Aged About 57 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶29

Saraswati Devi D/o Birdhi Chand, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶30

Benigopal S/o Pukhraj, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶31

Suresh Chand S/o Pukhraj, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Mahajan, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶32

Ganesh Ram S/o Shri Ram @ Shivraj, Aged About 80 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶33

Gokal Ram S/o Shri Ram @ Shivraj, Aged About 75 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶34

Khinya Ram S/o Shri Ram @ Shivraj, Aged About 75 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶35

Kamla D/o Shri Ram @ Shivraj, Aged About 60 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶36

Dhaglai D/o Shivraj, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶37

Budha Ram S/o Pema Ram, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶38

Shiv Ram S/o Pema Ram, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶39

Nathu Ram S/o Pema Ram, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶40

Bhagwana Ram S/o Puniya @ Poona Ram, Aged About 73 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶41

(3 of 8)

¶42

[CW-6112/2021]

¶43

Uma Devi D/o Puniya @ Poona Ram, Aged About 67 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶44

Chhoti Devi D/o Puniya @ Poona Ram, Aged About 69 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶45

Norati Devi W/o Khaju Ram, Aged About 75 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶46

Ugam Ram S/o Khaju Ram, Aged About 57 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶47

Bankat Ram S/o Khaju Ram, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶48

Shyamsunder S/o Khaju Ram, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶49

Madan Lal S/o Khaju Ram, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶50

Ganpat Ram S/o Khaju Ram, Aged About 47 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶51

Norati Devi W/o Pabu Ram, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶52

Shyam Lal S/o Pabu Ram, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶53

Chhotu Ram S/o Pabu Ram, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶54

Pema Ram S/o Pabu Ram, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶55

Chhoti Devi W/o Harji Ram, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶56

Tara Devi D/o Harji Ram, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶57

Saroj D/o Harji Ram, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶58

Chanda Devi W/o Bhoma Ram, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶59

Om Prakash S/o Bhoma Ram, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi,

(4 of 8)

[CW-6112/2021]

District Nagaur.

Suva Lal S/o Bhoma Ram, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶64

Dhanna Ram S/o Bhoma Ram, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶65

Prem Devi D/o Bhoma Ram, Aged About 77 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶66

Rukma Devi D/o Bhoma Ram, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶67

Laxmi Devi D/o Bhoma Ram, Aged About 43 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶68

Santosh Devi D/o Bhoma Ram, Aged About 41 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶69

Chuka Devi D/o Bhoma Ram, Aged About 39 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶70

Rekha Devi D/o Bhoma Ram, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶71

Shanti Devi W/o Bhagwan Ram, Aged About 67 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶72

Tulchhi Devi D/o Bhagwan Ram, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶73

Yashoda Devi D/o Bhagwan Ram, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶74

Champa Devi D/o Bhagwan Ram, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶75

Lalita Devi D/o Bhagwan Ram, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶76

Geeta Devi D/o Bhagwan Ram, Aged About 27 Years, By Caste Mali, Resident Of Riyan Badi, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶77

Tehsildar, Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

¶78

Patwari Halka, Riyan Badi District Nagaur.

¶79

Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Through Secretary.

----Respondents

(5 of 8)

[CW-6112/2021]

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Dalip Rajvi
	Mr.	Vikas Joshi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Bharat Boob for
	Mr.	OP Boob

¶84

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶85

Order

¶86

25/10/2021

¶87

The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration of rights and injunction against various defendants.

¶88

In the revenue suit so filed by the petitioner, the defendant No.20 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure and prayed for dismissal of petitioner’s suit, inter alia, stating that the Revenue Court does not have jurisdiction to set aside patta issued by the settlement department, hence, the suit be dismissed.

¶89

The Additional Collector vide his order dated 24.07.2020 dismissed the suit of the petitioner with an observation that the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to decide issues relating to inheritance and set aside patta granted in a party’s favour.

¶90

Against the aforesaid order dated 24.07.2020 passed by the Additional District Collector, Nagaur, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority under section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

¶91

Simultaneously with preferring an appeal, the petitioner had also preferred a revision petition before Board of Revenue, Ajmer.

¶92

In the revision so filed, the Board of Revenue, Ajmer observed that the petitioner ought not to have preferred a revision petition directly and he ought to have taken remedy of appeal available under section 223 of the Tenancy Act, 1995.

¶93

(6 of 8) [CW-6112/2021]

¶94

Meanwhile, petitioner’s appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority has been dismissed as abated vide order dated 15.10.2020.

¶95

While dismissing the appeal as a whole, the Revenue Appellate Authority held that the appeal has been preferred against the deceased respondent No.3 and 7, who had passed away even before filing of the appeal.

¶96

Against the impugned order aforesaid dated 15.10.2020, petitioner has preferred a further appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, which was registered as an appeal being 4006/2020.

¶97

However, since the petitioner had preferred a writ petition being SBCWP No. 5607/2020, as against the earlier Order of the Board, the petitioner decided to withdraw the said appeal filed before the Board of Revenue.

¶98

Learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards the proceedings drawn by the Revenue Appellate Authority and pointed out that the fact that the respondent No.3 and 7 had passed away came to the notice of the petitioner only during the proceedings of 28.09.2020, before the Revenue Appellate Authority.

¶99

Immediately, upon coming to know about the death of the respondent No.3 and 7, the petitioner moved an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure for substitution of their legal representatives.

¶100

He asserted that in the suit so filed, neither the respondent No.3 and 7 were served nor the fact that they had passed away, came on the record of the Trial Court and hence, the petitioner

¶101

(7 of 8)

¶102

[CW-6112/2021]

¶103

was absolutely unaware about the status of both the respondent No.3 and 7.

¶104

Mr. Boob, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.20 in Caveat submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable, inasmuch as, the petitioner ought to have challenged the order dated 15.10.2020, by way of filing an appeal before the Board of Revenue.

¶105

The petitioner had already withdrawn his appeal which was filed before the Board of Revenue against the order dated 15.12.2020, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner ought not to have withdrawn the appeal. 16. Be that as it may. Relegating the petitioner now, before the Board of Revenue would be a futile exercise, particularly when even the Revenue Appellate Authority has not decided the case on merit and has simply dismissed the petitioner’s appeal as abated. 17. Hence, in order to meet the ends of justice and in order to curtail multiplicity of litigation, while invoking inherent powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, I propose to entertain the present writ petition directly against the order dated 15.10.2020, passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority. 18. Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 15.10.2020, this Court finds that the Court below has not even considered the application of the petitioner dated 05.10.2020 under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and his request to bring legal representatives of respondent No.3 and 7, who had passed away. Since, the factum of death of respondent No.3 and 7 had come on the record of the Appellate Court only on 28.09.2020, there was

¶106

(8 of 8)

¶107

[CW-6112/2021]

¶108

no occasion for the petitioner to substitute legal representatives of respondent No.3 and 7.

¶109

The view taken by the Revenue Appellate Authority that the petitioner has preferred the appeal against the deceased respondent No.3 and 7 may be true but dismissal of the appeal notwithstanding the fact that application for substitution had been filed cannot be countenanced.

¶110

In any case, the Appellate Court was required to consider petitioner’s application dated 05.10.2020. Even if the Appellate Court was of the view that the petitioner’s application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not merit acceptance, the appeal as a whole, could not have been dismissed. At the best it could be dismissed only qua the deceased respondent No.3 and 7.

¶111

Consequent to the discussion aforesaid, the writ petition succeeds.

¶112

Impugned order dated 15.10.2020 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority in appeal No.65/2020 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

¶113

The Revenue Appellate Authority, Nagaur is directed to consider the application dated 05.10.2020 filed by the petitioner for substitution of legal representatives for respondent No.3 and 7, in accordance with law and then, proceed with the appeal.

¶114

Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶115

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶116

9-pooja/-

Ramgopal v. Chandmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramgopal v. Chandmal

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

Surender Kaur Memorial College of Higher Education Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Sangeeta Devi Vs the Municipal Corporation Udaipur

Mahaveer Educational and Social Welfare Trust College Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Kumar @ Sewanti Lal Vs State and Ors.

Gurmeet Singh and Anr. Vs Prescribed Autho. Cum Tehsildar and Anr.

Bhanwarlal Vs State of Rajasthan