Disposed

Smt. Rajo v. Bhupendra

Rajasthan HC16 Feb 2022CW/946/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a revision order that restored an interim injunction in a partition suit. The Court declined to decide on merits, directed the trial court to decide the suit within six months, and maintained status quo in possession and title.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; suit to be decided within six months; status quo maintained in title and possession; alienation retrained.

Smt. Rajo Vs Bhupendra — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 946/2022

¶3

Smt. Rajo W/o Roopa Ram, Aged About 76 Years, Village Railwada, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Bhupendra S/o Ganga Ram Jat, Village Railwada, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

¶7

Gomti D/o Ganga Ram Jat, Village Railwada, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

¶8

Harshita D/o Ganga Ram Jat, Village Railwada, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

¶9

Jani Devi W/o Ganga Ram Ji, Village Railwada, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

¶10

Kanchan D/o Ganga Ram Jat, Village Railwada, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

¶11

Kamla W/o Moola Ram Jat, Village Railwada, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Osian, District Jodhpur. ----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RJ Punia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Roshan Lal

¶14

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶15

Order

¶16

16/02/2022

¶17

The present writ petition lays challenge to the order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer in revision petition filed by the respondent No.1 to 4.

¶18

The facts appertain are that the plaintiffs – Gangaram and Kamla son and wife of Mularam respectively instituted a suit,

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

[CW-946/2022]

¶21

along with an application for temporary injunction under Section 212 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

¶22

In para No.3 of the temporary injunction application, it was specifically stated that plaintiffs and defendants are having possession of their share duly demarcated by the barbed wire fencing on the subject land and there is a ‘dhani’ of applicants, however, the said land has been recorded in the revenue record in joint possession of the parties.

¶23

Be that as it may.

¶24

The trial Court granted an interim injunction in a Camp held at Raimalwada (Lok Adalat) on 28.05.2018 to the effect that the parties shall maintain status-quo in relation to the disputed land as well as the revenue record.

¶25

The present petitioner preferred an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority and prayed that the order dated 28.05.2018 has been passed against a dead – person, as defendant – Rooparam had passed away on 07.10.2016 and the same is a nullity.

¶26

The Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur while observing that the order of temporary injunction has been passed against a dead person had partly allowed the appeal vide order dated 03.12.2020 and set aside the order passed by the trial Court vide order on 28.05.2018 so far as it relates to the 22 bigha 02 biswa 05 biswansi land that has been sold by the present petitioner.

¶27

Against the order aforesaid, the respondents preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer and vide order dated 15.12.2021 the Board of Revenue not only allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 03.12.2020

¶28

(3 of 4) [CW-946/2022]

¶29

passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority but also restored the order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the trial Court.

¶30

It is to be noted that the Revenue Appellate Authority was informed that wife of deceased – Rooparam (petitioner herein) had already sold the part of the land to one of her relatives hence, the Revenue Appellate Authority modified the injunction providing that it will not affect the sale already made. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the petitioner and respondents are not only co-tenant of the land in question but also relatives, this Court is of the view that deciding the case on its merit and dealing with the contentions of the both the parties at this stage may influence the case of either of the parties before the trial Court, where then suit for partition is pending for a considerable period of seven years. 11. More so, the original defendant Rooparam had passed away on 07.10.2016 and his legal representatives have not been brought on record and some part of the land has already been sold by the present petitioner to her relatives, this Court feels that passing any order would adversely affect rights of the parties, including the purchaser.

¶31

The writ petition is thus, disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to decide the suit as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months.

¶32

Till the disposal of the suit, both the parties shall maintain status-quo in relation to the title and possession of the land in question.

¶33

(4 of 4)

¶34

[CW-946/2022]

¶35

The petitioner shall not alienate or otherwise create third party rights qua the property in question till the decision of the suit.

¶36

Stay application too stands disposed of accordingly.

¶37

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶38

41-A.Arora/-

Smt. Rajo v. Bhupendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajo v. Bhupendra

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

Rajkumar Sharma Vs Union of India

Suresh Das Vaishnav Vs Prabhulal

Geeta Devi Vs Board of Revenue, Ajmer

Rajveer Singh Vs Smt. Naseeb Kaur

Kamakshi School of Nursing Vs State of Rajasthan

Ample Educations and Social Welfare Charitable Trust Vs the State of Rajasthan