Dismissed

Premlata v. Devendra Daga

Rajasthan HC4 Aug 2023CR/5/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision petition, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the plea against the Additional Civil Judge's rejection of a defendant's application to strike out the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The Court affirmed the lower court's finding that the land was no longer agricultural due to a municipal patta and that Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 required evidence.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; stay petition disposed of.

Premlata Vs Devendra Daga — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:24788]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 5/2023

¶4

Premlata W/o Shri Kana Ram, Aged About 59 Years, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of C.s. 88, Shivaji Nagar, Pali (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Devendra Daga S/o Shri Padamchand, By Caste Jain, Resident Of A-33, V.d. Nagar, Pali (Raj.)

¶8

Kana Ram S/o Shri Mishri Lal, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of C.S. 88, Shivaji Nagar, Pali (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.P. Soni

¶11

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶12

Order

¶13

04/08/2023

¶14

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge No.2, Pali in Civil Original Suit No.3/2022 whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by the defendant has been rejected. 2. Two grounds had been averred by the defendant in the application, firstly , the land is agricultural in nature and therefore, the suit before the Civil Court would not be maintainable. Secondly , the sale in question is hit by Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and therefore, the sale being void, the present suit is barred by law.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

[2023:RJ-JD:24788]

[CR-5/2023]

(2 of 2)

In the plaint, the plaintiff averred that the land in question, which is a farm house, had been purchased by him and a patta by the Municipal Council had been issued qua the said land. The Court below specifically held that once the patta by a local authority/body had been issued, the land no more remained agricultural and therefore, the suit was very well maintainable before the Civil Court. So far as Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is concerned, the Court has observed that the said question can be decided only after the evidence being led on the point.

¶20

In the opinion of this Court, both the findings as reached by the Court below are totally in consonance with law and do not deserve any interference by this Court.

¶21

The revision petition is therefore, dismissed .

¶22

Stay petition stands disposed of.

¶23

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶24

12-T.Singh/-

Premlata v. Devendra Daga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premlata v. Devendra Daga

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

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs Lrs of Durga Prasad and Ors.

Hanuman Prasad Vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited

Ram Krishan Vs F/M Ramdayal Mangi Lal Mahipal and Ors.

Sajjansingh Vs Karansingh

Kalawati Vs Rajbala and Anr.

Premlata Vs Jagjeet Daga