Allowed

Satya Narayan v. Askaran Singh

Rajasthan HC20 Apr 2023CW/3516/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a writ petition challenging the impleadment of a Gram Panchayat as a necessary party. The Court held that since the plaintiff did not seek relief against the Gram Panchayat, it was not a necessary party, and the order allowing impleadment was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 18.11.2019 directing impleadment of the Gram Panchayat was quashed and set aside. The writ petition and stay application were disposed of.

Satya Narayan Vs Askaran Singh — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3516/2020

¶3

Satya Narayan S/o Late Narsingh Das, Aged About 65 Years, By Caste Sewag, Resident Of Village Sanwarij, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Askaran Singh S/o Sohan Singh, Jodhpur.

¶7

Nakhat Singh S/o Sohan Singh, Jodhpur.

¶8

Samandar Singh S/o Askaran Singh, Jodhpur.

¶9

Amar Singh S/o Dharm Singh, All By Caste Rajput, Resident Of Village Sanwarij, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RJ Punia For Respondent(s) : Mr. DLR Vyas

¶12

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

¶13

Order

¶14

20/04/2023

¶15

The present writ petition has preferred by the petitioner while challenging the impugned order dated 18.11.2019 passed by Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi, District Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit No.46/2018 Satya Narayan Vs. Askaran Singh & Ors.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for mandatory and perpetual injunction against the respondents/defendants before the court of learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred as “trial Court”) on 07.06.2018. The petitioner/plaintiff has stated in the plaint that his residential plot along with bada is situated in old Abadi of Village Sanwarij. The size of the plot is 105x95 feet and a Panchayat Patta was issued by the Gram Panchayat, Sanwarij on dated 26.09.1999

¶17

[CW-3516/2020]

¶18

(2 of 5)

¶19

in the name of petitioner/plaintiff, which was subsequently registered before the Sub Registrar, Phalodi dated 30.06.2004.

¶20

The petitioner/plaintiff has been having possession since long time and various constructions were raised on the plot. The petitioner/plaintiff is residing in the plot and the nearby common pathway is being used by him as having easementary right since thirty years.

¶21

The respondents/defendants have erected some temporary structure on the common disputed pathway on 06.06.2018, thus obstructing the way which was being used by the petitioner/plaintiff. The temporary structure is covered with the wires and net and it has been alleged that the respondents/defendants had no right to erect the illegal constriction over the common pathway.

¶22

The petitioner/plaintiff has prayed in the plaint that the temporary constructions/encroachments made by the respondents/defendants may be removed from the common pathway and sought injunction against the respondents/defendants.

¶23

The respondents/defendants filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC on 08.06.2018, in which, it was stated that patta had been issued by the Gram Panchayt, Sanwarij in favour of the petitioner/ plaintiff and the residential house of the petitioner/plaintiff has been found in the khatedari land of respondents/defendants and, therefore, the Gram Panchayat, Sanwarij is the competent authority to show the actual possession and actual position of the plot of the plaintiff and, therefore, prayed that the Gram Panchayat, Sanwarij is a necessary party to be impleaded as defendant respondents.

¶24

The petitioner/plaintiff filed reply to the application filed by the respondents/defendants and denied all the contents.

¶25

[CW-3516/2020]

¶26

(3 of 5)

¶27

The learned court below has decided the application on 18.11.2019 whereby the same was allowed and the Gram Panchayat, Sanwarij was directed to be impleaded as party defendants in the suit.

¶28

Being aggrieved with the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that plaintiff is the master of the suit and is dominus litis and it is for him to decide and implead the necessary parties for proper adjudication and determination of rights for the suit filed. He further submits that no relief has been sought against the Gram Panchayat, Sanwarij, therefore, the learned court below has erred in allowing the application filed by the respondents/defendants.

¶29

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the patta of the petitioner, upon which, he has constructed residential house issued by the Gram Panchayat, Sanwarij as well as the allegation levelled upon the respondents/defendants that the common way has been encroached upon by him vests with the Gram Panchayat, Sanwarij, therefore, the Gram Panchayat, Sanwarij is necessary party for proper and fair adjudication of suit preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff and therefore the learned court below has rightly allowed his application.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶31

The petitioner/plaintiff has preferred the suit with the following prayers:-

¶32

1. कि� ्ቚति�वादीगण वादी �ी इस बाद �े पद संख्या 1 में व एनेक्श्चर ए में दቦኋा�ई वादी �ी आवासीय जायगा व बाड़ा �े आस पडौस में अवቝኌ)� रा)�ों व गली �ी भूमिम पर लगाये गये पत्र. खूंटों व �राई जा रही

¶33

�ारबंदी �ो �त्�ाल हटा�र अति�्ቅमण मुक्� �र दे व वादी �े रा)�े �े

¶34

[CW-3516/2020]

¶35

(4 of 5)

¶36

सुखाधि8�ारों में एवं उस�े उपयोग उपभोग में कि�सी ्ቚ�ार �ी बा8ा या अवरो8 या दखलअंदाजी �र हनन नही �रे।

¶37

कि� ्ቚति�वादीगण �े विवरुद्8 इस आቦኋय �ी )*ाई तिनषे8ा्ሺा जारी �ी जाये कि� वे वादी �ी आवासीय जायगा व बाडा �ा उस�े आस पड़ौस �े आम रा)�ों गली �ी भूमिम पर भविवष्य में भी कि�सी ्ቚ�ार �ा अति�चार अवरो8 या तिनमा�ण �ाय� पत्र खूंटे जाली आदिद लगा�र न �ो )वयं अति�चार �रे न कि� से �राने �ा ही ्ቚयास �रे और न ही वादी �ी आवासीय जायगा में ्ቚवेቦኋ �े रा)�ों �ो अवरुद्8 �रे न उसमें �ोई दखलअंदाजी �रे और न कि�सी से �राये।

¶38

इस वाद �ा व्यय वादी �ो ्ቚ ति�वादीगण से दिदलवाया जावे। 4) अन्य आ्ሺा जो बादी �े दिह��र हो ्ቚदान �ी जावे ।

¶39

In this case, the petitioner/plaintiff has not claimed any relief against the Gram Panchayat, Sanwarij and he has specifically sought relief against the private respondents for the purpose of removing the encroachments made by the private respondents made in common way situated near the residential house of the petitioner/plaintiff.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Kishan Sharma & Anr Vs Gram Panchayat, Niwaru & Ors. decided on 05.01.2012.

¶41

Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Nagar Palika Nadbai Vs. Shri Brij Lal & Ors decided on 19.08.2013.

¶42

It is a settled law that the plaintiff is dominus litis and the master of the suit and it is for him to decide as to who would be the necessary party in the suit for proper adjudication and determination of the rights. 18. This Court finds that it is for the petitioner to decide as to who should be joined as party defendants in the suit that he has preferred and since the petitioner has not claimed any relief against the Gram

¶43

[CW-3516/2020]

¶44

(5 of 5)

¶45

Panchayat, Sanwarij, therefore the Gram Panchayat, Sanwarij cannot be said to be a necessary party.

¶46

In view of the above facts and circumstance, the order passed by the learned court below dated 18.11.2019 is, therefore, quashed and set aside.

¶47

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition and stay application are disposed of.

¶48

(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J

¶49

surabhii/68-

Satya Narayan v. Askaran Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Narayan v. Askaran Singh

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

Kartikey Rathore (Minor) Vs Union of India

Smt. Sumitra Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Hariom Transport Company Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Rajesh Barasa Vs State of Rajasthan

Mool Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Rajendra Sansthan/ Bhinmal Vs State of Rajasthan