Dismissed

Chuna Ram @ Chundas v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Sept 2022CRLMP/17/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a succession dispute regarding the Panth of late Teju Das and Raju Ram, the petitioner claimed sufficient record. The court relied on the Supreme Court report and the private respondent's submission regarding the petitioner's alleged intention to sell land at a high price. Finding no cause of interference in the petition due to lack of locus standi, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

All pending applications also stand dismissed.

Chuna Ram @ Chundas Vs State of Rajasthan — Succession and Inheritance | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 17/2019

¶3

Chuna Ram @ Chundas, Aged About 48 Years, Disciple Of Teju Das, Village Champansar, Bhojasar , Jodhpur Rural

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

Om Prakash S/o Sh. Pushkar Das, Panchla Khurd , Bhojasar, Jodhpur Rural

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. RC Joshi
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. MA Siddiqui GA cum AAG Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP
		Mr. Dhirendra Singh Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Jagdish Singh Mr. Rajendra Khadav, SI, Bhojasar, Jodhpur

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Order

¶12

01/09/2022

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously disputed the issues on count of the dispute in succession to the Panth of Late Teju Das and Late Raju Ram. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had sufficient record to show that he was the successor of the Panth in question.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following judgments :-

¶15

"Rupa Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3393/2015), decided on 16.08.2017.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLMP-17/2019]

¶18

Gurlabh Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3673/2016), decided on 26.08.2017.

¶19

Prof. R K Vijayasarathy & Anr. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.238/2019). "

¶20

Learned Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General alongwith learned Public Prosecutor and learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent submit that the intention of the petitioner to sale the land at a costly remuneration to the tune of 180 bigha in 2018 shows that he was upto something unlawful. It is also submitted by learned GA cum AAG that after thorough investigation, it has been found that the petitioner does not have any locus-standi to be successor of the Panth in question.

¶21

The factual report produced by learned Public Prosecutor is taken on record.

¶22

In view of above, no cause of interference in the present misc. petition is made out, thus, the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed.

¶23

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶24

118-Sudheer/-

Chuna Ram @ Chundas v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chuna Ram @ Chundas v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Krishan Vs State

Chhog Singh and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Subhash Chandra Vs State

Khetaram Vs State

Lahari Aameta Vs State