Dismissed

Santosh Kumar Gandhi v. Mohd. Ayub

Rajasthan HC10 Dec 2024CR/212/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's order rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The revision petitioners challenged the rejection of their plea to reject the plaint, but the Court upheld the trial court's finding that grounds like possession and validity of documents require determination on merits after framing issues.

What the court decided

AI extract

Santosh Kumar Gandhi Vs Mohd. Ayub — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:50489]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 212/2023

¶4

Santosh Kumar Gandhi S/o Omprakash Gandhi, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Maheshwari, R/o 24, Dilip Kumar, Lal Sagar, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

¶5

Mukesh Parihar S/o Balveer Singh Parihar, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste Mali, R/o Pariharon Ka Bas, Magra Punjala, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Mohd. Ayub S/o Natthuji, By Caste Chheepa Musalman, R/o Chheepa Colony, Nagauri Gate, Jodhpur. Presently - House No. 5003, Peepli Chowk, Maderna Colony, Jodhpur. (Plaintiff)

¶9

Anwar Tak S/o Yunus Tak, By Caste Chheepa Musalman, R/o Outside Nagauri Gate, Chheepa Colony, Jodhpur.

¶10

Harun Tak S/o Yunus Tak, By Caste Chheepa Musalman, R/o Outside Nagauri Gate, Chheepa Colony, Jodhpur.

¶11

Yakub Tak S/o Yunus Tak, By Caste Chheepa Musalman, R/o Outside Nagauri Gate, Chheepa Colony, Jodhpur.

¶12

Mohd. Shareef Tak S/o Yunus Tak, By Caste Chheepa Musalman, R/o Outside Nagauri Gate, Chheepa Colony, Jodhpur.

¶13

Khaja Hussain S/o Yunus Tak, By Caste Chheepa Musalman, R/o Outside Nagauri Gate, Chheepa Colony, Jodhpur.

¶14

Mohd. Yusuf S/o Shamsuddin, By Caste Lohar Musalman, R/o Near Bijlighar, Nagauri Gate Circle, Jodhpur.

¶15

Smt. Shahida Bano W/o Shamsuddin, By Caste Lohar Musalman, R/o Near Bijlighar, Nagauri Gate Circle, Jodhpur.

¶16

Smt. Kamla W/o Shri Padmaram Ji, By Caste Suthar, R/o Paharganj Second, Jodhpur.

¶17

Padamchand Mutha S/o Lakhichand Ji Mutha, By Caste Oswal, R/o Peeyush Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar Main Road, Jodhpur.

¶18

Hem Singh S/o Om Singh Ji, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village Lordi Panditji, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

¶19

(2 of 4) [CR-212/2023]

¶20

[2024:RJ-JD:50489]

¶21

Hemaram S/o Pratapram Ji, By Caste Patel, R/o Village Lordi Panditji, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

¶22

Smt. Rekha Luniya W/o Shri Chintajan Luniya, By Caste Jain, R/o B-32, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.

¶23

Kailash Rathi S/o Shri Deendayal, By Caste Maheshwari, R/o Suraj Bera, Soorsagar, Jodhpur.

¶24

Satyanarayan Tak S/o Khinyaram Ji, By Caste Mali, R/o Tako Ki Dhani, Birani, Jodhpur.

¶25

Mahesh Kumar Dayani S/o Shri Manchharam Ji, By Caste Sindhi, R/o C-3, Shivshakti Nagar, Outside Mahamandir Teesri Pole, Jodhpur.

¶26

Allabux Alias Allahbux Chheepa S/o Natthuji Chheepa, By Caste Chheepa Musalman, R/o Chheepa Colony, Outside Nagauri Gate, Jodhpur.

¶27

----Respondents

¶28

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Falgun Buch & Mr. Gopal Krishna
	Chhangani
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rakesh Gupta

¶29

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶30

Order

¶31

10/12/2024

¶32

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Original Suit No.300/2023 whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151, CPC as preferred on behalf of defendant Nos.13 to 15 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendants’) stood rejected. 2. Vide the said application, the defendants prayed for the rejection of the plaint on the following counts:

¶33

i. For non-impleadment of Jodhpur Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘JDA’) as the complete

[2024:RJ-JD:50489]

[CR-212/2023]

(3 of 4)

proceedings of acquisition/surrender and conversion had been conducted by JDA.

¶38

ii. The alleged gift deed dated 24.08.2023 was ipso facto void as even before the alleged will from which the plaintiff has averred to have accrued the right to execute the said gift deed came into existence, the property had been sold out vide a registered sale deed.

¶39

iii. In absence of any possession on the property in question, the plaintiff could not have prayed and be granted the relief of declaration in his favour.

¶40

iv. In absence of any relief for possession, the present suit for declaration was not maintainable.

¶41

v. As the registered sale deed was not put to challenge, the valuation of the suit in question was not evaluated properly and hence, the plaint deserved to be rejected for insufficient Court fee.

¶42

vi. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr.; (2012) 1 SCC 656, the transfer of any property cannot be termed to be valid/complete by virtue of an agreement to sell, power of attorney or a will.

¶43

The learned Trial Court after hearing the counsels and analyzing the law regarding all the issues as raised, proceeded on to observe that the grounds as raised by the defendants were not sufficient for rejection of the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.

¶44

The learned Trial Court specifically observed that while dealing with an application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC, the Court

[2024:RJ-JD:50489]

[CR-212/2023]

(4 of 4)

is required to go through the averments as made in the plaint only and so far as the plaint in question is concerned, specific averments of the property being in possession of the defendants and further, they being in rightful and legal possession of the property had been made.

¶49

The learned Trial Court while relying upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Gurdev vs. Harvinder Singh; SLP (C) No.19018/2022 (decided on 09.11.2022) further observed that even if it is found that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the suit, the suit cannot be rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.

¶50

The learned Trial Court also observed that the issue whether the alleged gift deed was a void document could also be decided only after the issues being framed and the evidence being led on the said aspect.

¶51

In the specific opinion of this Court, the findings as recorded by the learned Trial Court are totally in consonance with principles of law governing the provision of Order 7 Rule 11, CPC. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the said order and the present revision petition is hence, dismissed .

¶52

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶53

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶54

313-KashishS/-

Santosh Kumar Gandhi v. Mohd. Ayub

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Santosh Kumar Gandhi v. Mohd. Ayub

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Singh Vs Samandar Kanwar

Jagdish Singh Vs Champa Kanwar

Jagdish Singh Vs Anju Devi

Arjun Singh Rathod Vs Union of India

Bada Ram Vs Shashi Prakash and Anr.

Durasdan and Ors. Vs Mahendra Singh and Ors.