Dismissed

Smt. Dakhu Devi v. Lrs of Late Rewashankar

Rajasthan HC11 Oct 2023CFA/510/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench disposed of two applications. Permission for impleadment of legal representatives of a deceased respondent was granted, while an application for impleadment by a settled applicant was withdrawn. The principal appeal, filed by the appellant regarding property shares, was dismissed as withdrawn after the court confirmed no prejudice to non-appealing parties.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Dakhu Devi Vs Lrs of Late Rewashankar — Succession and Inheritance | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:34324]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 510/2006

¶4

Smt. Dakhu Devi W/o Late Pukhraj, Aged About 75 Years, B/c Mewara Kalal, R/o Maudon Ka Chauk, Loharo Ki Masjid, Hathram Ka Oda, Jodhpur.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Lrs Of Late Rewashankar, Adoption S/o Tulsiram (S/o Lalchand) B/c Mewara Kalal, R/o Subhash Chauk, Barmer

¶8

1/1. Dhanraj S/o Lt. Rewashankar, B/c Mewara Kalar R/o House No. 30, Masuriya Balaji, Near New Kohinoor Cinema, Back Side Of Andra Bank, Jodhpur.

¶9

1/2. Lrs Of Rajendra Prasad S/o Rewashankar, S/o Rewashankar

¶10

1/2/1. Shakuntala Devi W/o Late Rajendra Prasad, B/c Mewara Kalal Resident Of Sugan Sadan, Inside Sojti Gate, Near Bata Shop, Jodhpur.

¶11

1/2/2. Dhiraj S/o Late Rajendra Prasad, B/c Mewara Kalal Resident Of Sugan Sadan, Inside Sojti Gate, Near Bata Shop, Jodhpur.

¶12

1/2/3. Vinita W/o Puneet Mewara, B/c Mewara Kalal Resident Of Sugan Sadan, Inside Sojti Gate, Near Bata Shop, Jodhpur.

¶13

1/3. Shivnarayan S/o Lt. Rewashankar, R/o House No. 30, Masuriya Balaji, Near New Kohinoor Cinema, Back Side Of Andra Bank, Jodhpur.

¶14

1/4. Madanlal S/o Lt. Rewashankar, R/o House No. 30, Masuriya Balaji, Near New Kohinoor Cinema, Back Side Of Andra Bank, Jodhpur.

¶15

Lrs. Of Late Smt. Mangi Devi, W/o Punamchand B/c Mewara Kalal

¶16

2/1. Shyamlal S/o Lt. Punamchand, B/c Mewara Kalal R/o Old Bus Stand, Rabariyo Ka Bass, Bali, District Pali.

¶17

2/2. Smt. Chuniya Bai W/o Lt. Punamchand, B/c Mewara Kalal R/o Old Bus Stand, Rabariyo Ka Bass, Bali, District Pali.

¶18

2/3. Smt. Asiya D/o Lt. Punamchand, B/c Mewara Kalal R/o Old Bus Stand, Rabariyo Ka Bass, Bali, District Pali.

¶19

2/4. Smt. Hariya D/o Lt. Punamchand, B/c Mewara Kalal R/o Old Bus Stand, Rabariyo Ka Bass, Bali, District Pali.

¶20

(2 of 4) [CFA-510/2006]

¶21

[2023:RJ-JD:34324]

¶22

2/5. Smt. Pawan D/o Lt. Punamchand, B/c Mewara Kalal R/o Old Bus Stand, Rabariyo Ka Bass, Bali, District Pali.

¶23

Gautamraj Alias Kishan Kumar S/o Lt. Pukhraj, B/c Mewara Kalal R/o Loharo Ka Bass, Kalyanpura, Barmer (Raj.).

¶24

Sampat Raj S/o Pukhraj, B/c Mewara Kalal R/o Loharo Ka Bass, Kalyanpura, Barmer (Raj.). At Present Abu Road, District Sirohi.

¶25

----Respondents

¶26

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sudheer Sharma
	Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit
	Mr. Prashant Tatia
	Mr. Piyush Chouhan

¶27

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶28

Order

¶29

11/10/2023

¶30

In the present appeal, an application has been preferred on behalf of the appellant Dakhu Devi seeking a permission to withdraw the present appeal.

¶31

An application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also preferred on behalf of applicant Uttam Kumar for impleadment in the present appeal. However, subsequently, an application to withdraw his application for impleadment has been filed with a submission that he has entered into a compromise with the parties and hence, does not want to be impleaded.

¶32

In view of the subsequent application filed on behalf of Uttam Kumar, the earlier application under Order I Rule 10, CPC is permitted to be withdrawn.

¶33

Both the applications stand disposed of.

[2023:RJ-JD:34324]

[CFA-510/2006]

(3 of 4)

An application under Order XXII Rule 10 A, CPC r.w. under Order I Rule 10, CPC has also been filed on behalf of legal representatives of respondent No.1/2 Rajendra Prasad with a submission that Rajendra Prasad had expired on 04.01.2019 and his legal representatives have not been impleaded in the present appeal. Therefore, they be impleaded in the present appeal.

¶38

The application is allowed. The legal representatives of respondent No.1/2 Rajendra Prasad are permitted to be impleaded as party respondents.

¶39

The amended cause title as filed is taken on record.

¶40

Coming on to the application as preferred on behalf of the appellant Dakhu Devi for withdrawal of the present appeal. Admittedly, vide the impugned judgment and decree, the shares of the plaintiff Rewa Shanker and the defendant Pukh Raj had been declared to be half share each. No appeal against the impugned judgment and decree has been preferred by legal representatives of Rewa Shanker. The present appeal has been filed by Dakhu Devi, wife of Pukh Raj (defendant No.1).

¶41

Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, if the present appellant is permitted to withdraw the present appeal, the withdrawal of the same would definitely, not in any manner, affect the rights of the legal representatives of Rewa Shanker. So far as the legal representatives of the defendant Pukh Raj are concerned, counsel appearing for them specifically submit that they have no objection, if the present appeal is permitted to be withdrawn as a settlement has been arrived at between all the legal representatives of the deceased Pukh Raj.

¶42

(4 of 4) [CFA-510/2006]

¶43

[2023:RJ-JD:34324]

¶44

In view of the above facts, the permission as prayed for withdrawal of the appeal by the present appellant is granted. The present appeal is therefore, dismissed as withdrawn.

¶45

All the pending applications also stand dismissed.

¶46

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶47

450-Sachin/-

Smt. Dakhu Devi v. Lrs of Late Rewashankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Dakhu Devi v. Lrs of Late Rewashankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Insaf Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jubaida Vs the State of Rajasthan

Norang Lal Vs the Collector Churu

Vijay Kumar Vs State and Ors.

Sagar Plaza Shopping Center Private Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Hans Raj Vs State and Anr.