Allowed

Umesh Kalra S/O Late Sh. Narayan Das v. Naresh Kumar Kalra S/O Late Sh. Narayan Das

Rajasthan HC15 Oct 2025/175/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against rejection of an Order VII Rule 11 application in a suit by brothers challenging their mother's will and gift deed as void for want of sound mind. Holding the suit was substantially one for cancellation under Section 38 of the 1961 Act, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed revaluation within 60 days.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 03-04-2025 set aside; plaintiffs directed to amend plaint with market-value valuation and pay deficient court fee within 60 days, failing which suit to be rejected under Order VII

Umesh Kalra S/O Late Sh. Narayan Das Vs Naresh Kumar… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:39486]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 175/2025

¶4

Umesh Kalra S/o Late Sh. Narayan Das, Aged About 62 Years, R/o House No. 3, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota, Raj.

¶5

Smt Suneeta Kalra W/o Umesh Kalra, Aged About 57 Years, R/o House No. 3, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota, Raj.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Naresh Kumar Kalra S/o Late Sh. Narayan Das, Aged About 69 Years, R/o House No. 3, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota, Raj.

¶9

Suresh Kalra S/o Late Sh Narayan Das, Aged About 60 Years, R/o House No. 3, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota, Raj.

¶10

Nagar Nigam (South), Kota Through Commissioner.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bhawani Shankar, Adv. Mr. Kartik Sharma, Adv.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶14

Judgment / Order

¶15

Reserved On : 13.10.2025 Pronounced On : 15.10.2025

¶16

1- ;kph&izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 dh vksj ls ;g nhokuh fuxjkuh ;kfpdk fo}ku flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼nf{k.k½ dksVk] jktLFkku }kjk nhokuh okn la[;k 127@2025 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 03-04-2025 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh] ftlds ek/;e ls izfroknh Øe&1 o 2 dh vksj ls izLrqr vkosnu varxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lhihlh [kkfjt fd;k x;kA

[2025:RJ-JP:39486]

[CR-175/2025]

(2 of 7)

2- fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph&izfroknhx.k rFkk v;kph&oknhx.k dks lquk x;k rFkk vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

¶21

3- fooknjfgr rF; ;g gS fd oknh Øe&1] 2 rFkk izfroknh Øe&1 rhuksa LoxhZ; ukjk;.knkl th ds iq= gksdj lxs HkkbZ gSa] ukjk;.knkl th dh e`R;q ds mijkar muds }kjk NksMs x, oknxzLr edku ds laca/k esa ,d gd ifjR;kx i= vU; mRrjkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk ukjk;.knklth dh iRuh Jherh pUnzdyk dkyjk ds i{k esa fnukad 21-04-2008 dks fu"ikfnr fd;kA

¶22

4- fookn ;gka ls izkjaHk gksrk gS fd Jherh pUnzdyk dkyjk }kjk fnukad 28-11-2009 dks dfFkr :i ls ,d olh;r fu"ikfnr djrs gq, izfroknh Øe&1 mes'k] oknh Øe&2 lqjs'k o oknh Øe&1 ujs'k ds i{k esa Øe'k% lrg eafty] izFke eafty o f}rh; eafty muds gd esa j[krs gq, olh;r fu"ikfnr dhA olh;r fnukad 28-11-2009 ds laca/k esa oknhx.k dh ;g vkifRr gS fd pUnzdyk dkyjk rRle; ekufld o 'kkjhfjd :i ls LoLFk ugha Fkh] mls le>k, fcuk ;g olh;r izfroknh Øe&1 us fu"ikfnr djok yh rFkk mlds vk/kkj ij izfroknh Øe&1 us viuh iRuh vFkkZr izfroknh Øe&2 ds i{k esa fnukad 07-01-2022 dks migkj i= fu"ikfnr dj fn;kA olh;r fnukad 28-11-2009 rFkk mlds vk/kkj ij fu"ikfnr migkj i= fnukad 07-01-2022 dks 'kwU; o voS/k ?kksf"kr djkus dk vuqrks"k oknhx.k }kjk pkgk x;k gSA

¶23

5- izfroknh Øe&1 o 2 }kjk vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lhihlh dk vkosnu izLrqr dj okn ewY;kadu o vnk fd, x, U;k;'kqYd dks vi;kZIr gksuk crkrs gq, okn ukeatwj fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA uxjikfydk dks fof/kd uksfVl ugha fn, tkus dh Hkh vkifRr fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k yh xbZ] ijarq bl U;k;ky; esa bl vkifRr dks ;kph i{k }kjk izsl ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk mudh eq[; vkifRr okn ewY;kadu o U;k;'kqYd ds fcUnq ij lhfer jgh gSA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk nksuksa i{kksa dks lqudj vk{ksfir vkns'k ds ek/;e ls izfroknhx.k 1 o 2 dk vkosnu varxZr vkns'k 7 fu;e 11

[2025:RJ-JP:39486]

[CR-175/2025]

(3 of 7)

lhihlh [kkfjt fd;k x;k] ftlls O;fFkr gksdj ;g fuxjkuh ;kfpdk izLrqr dhA

¶28

6- fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kphx.k dk fuosnu gS fd ;g okn oLrqr% fookfnr olh;r o migkj i= dks fujLr djkus ds laca/k esa gS] vr% nksuksa nLrkostksa esa mYysf[kr laifRr dk okn izLrqfr ds fnu cktkj ewY; ds vuqlkj okn ewY;kadu gksdj U;k;'kqYd vnk gksuk visf{kr gS] tcfd oknh i{k }kjk ,slk ugha fd;k x;k gSA

¶29

7- blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk oknhx.k dk fuosnu gS fd oknhx.k nksuksa nLrkostksa esa i{kdkj ugha Fks] muds }kjk nLrkost fu"ikfnr ugha fd;k x;k gS] vr% ;g okn fookfnr nLrkostksa dks fujLr djus ds laca/k esa ugha gksdj ?kks"k.kk ds laca/k esa gS] vr% jktLFkku U;k;'kqYd ,oa okn ewY;kadu vf/kfu;e 1961 ¼vkxs ^^vf/kfu;e&1961^^ dgk tk,xk½ dh /kkjk 38 ds izko/kku vkd"V ugha gksrs gSa] vfirq ^^vf/kfu;e&1961^^ dh /kkjk 24bZ ds izko/kku bl ekeys esa vkd"V gksrs gSa rFkk mlds vuqlkj mfpr :i ls okn ewY;kadu djrs gq, i;kZIr U;k;'kqYd vnk fd;k x;k gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vk{ksfir vkns'k iw.kZr% fof/klEer gS] var esa fuxjkuh ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh dh vksj ls U;kf;d fu.kZ; Suhrid Singh Vs.Randhir Singh & Ors. (2010) 12 SCC 112 izLrqr fd;k] ftlds iSjk la[;k 7 dk lqlaxr okn fuEukuqlkj gS&

¶30

"7. Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to A' and B' -- two brothers. A' executes a sale deed in favour of C'. Subsequently A' wants to avoid the sale. A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if `B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by

(4 of 7)

[2025:RJ-JP:39486]

[CR-175/2025]

A' is invalid/void and non- est/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as nonbinding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If 'A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay advalorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If B', who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if 'B', a non- executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) of Section 7."

¶35

8- mijksDr fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj Li"V gS fd tgka pqukSrhxzLr nLrkost esa oknh] fu"iknudrkZ vFkok i{kdkj ugha jgk gS rFkk r`rh; i{kdkj }kjk nLrkost fu"ikfnr gqvk gS vkSj ,sls nLrkost ds ckotwn oknh viuk LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; LFkkfir djus esa l{ke gS rks nLrkost dks fujLr djk;s tkus dh vko';drk ugha gS rFkk ,slk nLrkost oknh ij vkc)dj ugha gS vFkok 'kwU; gS] bl izdkj ds vuqrks"k dk okn ?kks"k.kk dk okn gh ekuk tk;sxkA

¶36

9- bl U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB }kjk Sukhlal Vs. Devilal, 1954 RLW 136 (AIR 1954 Raj 170) esa bl fcUnq ij fuEu O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh gS&

¶37

"There is a difference between a suit for the cancellation of an instrument and one for a declaration that the instrument is not binding on the plaintiff. When the plaintiff seeks to establish a title in himself and cannot establish that title without

(5 of 7)

[2025:RJ-JP:39486]

[CR-175/2025]

removing an insuperable obstacle such as a decree or a deed to which he has been a party or by which he is otherwise bound, then quite clearly he must get that decree or deed cancelled or declared void in toto and his suit is in substance a suit for the cancellation of the decree or deed notwithstanding the fact that the suit may have been framed as a suit for a declaration. On the other hand, when the plaintiff is seeking to establish a title and finds himself threatened by a decree or transaction between third parties, he is not in a position to get that decree or deed cancelled in toto. The proper remedy in such a case is to get a declaration that the decree or deed is invalid so far as he himself is concerned, and therefore, he may sue for a declaration to that effect and not for the cancellation of the decree or the deed. In this case it is obvious that it would be impossible for the plaintiffs to establish their title to the property in question unless they sued to remove an obstruction which would otherwise be insuperable because the sale made by the father would be binding upon the sons, unless it is set aside. We therefore hold that the present suit of the plaintiffs was substantially a suit not for a declaration that a certain sale-deed was inoperative against them, but for the cancellation of the said sale-deed in toto."

¶42

mijksDr fu.kZ; Sukhlal Vs. Devilal 1954 (Supra) dk vuqlj.k bl U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB }kjk Lal Singh and Ors. Vs. Tejsingh and Anr., 1971(4) WLN 674 rFkk Shantilal Agarwal Vs. Rama Bai, (1973) 0 Supreme(Raj)111 esa Hkh fd;k x;k gSA 10ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Suhrid Singh Vs.Randhir Singh & Ors. (supra) rFkk Sukhlal Vs. Devilal (Supra) esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk dks lexz :i ls ns[kk tkos rks ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd tgka pqukSrhxzLr nLrkost oknh }kjk fu"ikfnr ugha gksdj fdlh r`rh; O;fDr vFkok oknxzLr lEifRr ls vlacaf/kr O;fDr }kjk fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k gS rFkk mijksDr nLrkost ds vfLrRo esa jgus ds ckotwn oknh viuk LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; Lora= :i ls LFkkfir djus esa l{ke gS] ysfdu Hkfo"; esa ,slk nLrkost oknh ds vf/kdkjksa ij iz'u vFkok ladV mRiUu dj ldrk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa mijksDr ,slk

[2025:RJ-JP:39486]

[CR-175/2025]

(6 of 7)

nLrkost oknh ij vkc)dj ugha gS vFkok 'kwU; gS] bl ckcr~ ?kks"k.kk dk okn yk;k tk ldrk gS vkSj og ^^vf/kfu;e&1961^^ dh /kkjk 24 ls 'kkflr gksxkA

¶47

11blds foijhr ;fn ,sls nLrkost dks oknh ds iwokZf/kdkjh }kjk fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k gS vkSj mlds vfLrRo esa jgus dh fLFkfr esa oknh Lora= :i ls viuk LokfeRo vFkok vf/kdkj LFkkfir djus esa l{ke ugha gS rFkk ,sls nLrkost ds fu"iknudrkZ ls oknh ds vf/kdkj i`Fkdj.kh; ugha gSa rks ,slh fLFkfr esa okni= esa ;|fi nLrkost dks 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;s tkus dk vuqrks"k pkgk x;k gks] ysfdu oLrqr% vkSj lkjr% ,slk okn nLrkost dks fujLr ds laca/k esa gh ekuk tkosxk rFkk ^^vf/kfu;e&1961^^ dh /kkjk 38 ls 'kkflr gksxkA

¶48

12orZeku ekeys esa ;g fookn jfgr fLFkfr gS fd oknxzLr lEifRr oknh dze&1] 2 rFkk izfroknh dze&1 dh ekrk pUnzdyk dkyjk ds ,dy LokfeRo dh gksdj futh lEifRr Fkh] vr% mls vius thoudky esa olh;r djus dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj Fkk vkSj bl ckcr~ dksbZ fookn Hkh ugha gSA ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd oknh dk bl lEifRr esa dksbZ futh vkSj Lora= vf/kdkj ugha gS] vr% Li"V gS fd bl olh;r vFkok olh;r ds fu"iknudrkZ ls mlds fgr vkSj vf/kdkj iFkdj.kh; ugha gS rFkk ,slh fLFkfr esa oLrqr% o lkjr% ;g okn olh;r dks fujLr djokus ds laca/k esa gh gSA okn ds vfHkdFkuksa dks 'kkfCnd :i esa i<+us ds ctk; mldk lkj o eeZ lqlaxr gS vkSj ml nf"Vdks.k ls Hkh okn dk voyksdu fd;k tkos rks ;g okn pqukSrhxzLr olh;r dks fujLr djokus ds laca/k esa gh gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa ^^vf/kfu;e&1961^^ dh /kkjk 38 ds izko/kku vkd`"V gksrs gSaA

¶49

13;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd oknxzLr olh;r ;fn izHkko esa jgrh gS rks oknh mlls vkc)dj gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa ;|fi oknh bl olh;r esa i{kdkj vFkok fu"iknudrkZ ugha gS] ysfdu izHkko esa jgus ij og bl olh;r ls ikcan gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa U;kf;d fu.kZ; Sukhlal Vs. Devilal

[2025:RJ-JP:39486]

[CR-175/2025]

(7 of 7)

(Supra) esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj ;g okn olh;r dks fujLr djokus ds laca/k esa gh ekuk tkosxkA

¶54

14fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh dh ;g Hkh vkifRr jgh gS fd oknh }kjk fookfnr olh;r rFkk i'pkrorhZ migkj&i= nksuksa dks fujLr djokus dk vuqrks"k pkgk gS] vr% nksuksa nLrkostksa esa mYysf[kr lEifRr ds cktkj ewY; ds vuqlkj okn ewY;kadu gksdj U;k;'kqYd vnk gksuk visf{kr gS] ijUrq blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk oknh i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n"VkUr Devnarayan Sharma Vs. Ramphool & Ors, 2024 (2) RLW 1065 (Raj) esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj Li"V gS fd ^^vf/kfu;e&1961^^ dh /kkjk 6 ds izko/kkuksa ds lanHkZ esa i'pkrorhZ migkj i= dks fujLr djokus dk vuqrks"k vkuq"kkafxd gS] vr% ml ij iFkd ls U;k;'kqYd vnk fd;k tkuk vko';d ugha gS] vr% fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh dk ;g rdZ Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gSA

¶55

15tSlk fd Åij foospu fd;k x;k gS fd orZeku okn fookfnr olh;r dks fujLr djokus ds laca/k esa gS] vr% ^^vf/kfu;e&1961^^ dh /kkjk 38 ds izko/kku vkd`"V gksrs gSa vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vk{ksfir vkns'k rF;ksa ,oa fof/k ds vuq:i ugha gksus ls vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSA 16vr% ;g fuxjkuh ;kfpdk Lohdkj dj vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 03-04-2025 dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk oknhx.k@v;kphx.k dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd oknxzLr olh;r esa mYysf[kr lEifRr ds okn izLrqfr ds fnu cktkj ewY; ij okn ewY;kadu djrs gq, rFkk mlh vuqlkj okn la'kksf/kr djrs gq, vkt ls 60 fnu esa la'kksf/kr okn o cdk;k U;k;'kqYd izLrqr djs] mlesa vlQy jgus ij oknhx.k dk okn vkns'k 7 fu;e 11 lhihlh ds rgr ukeatwj ekuk tk,xkA

¶56

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶57

Mittal /res

Umesh Kalra S/O Late Sh. Narayan Das v. Naresh Kumar Kalra S/O Late Sh. Narayan Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Kalra S/O Late Sh. Narayan Das v. Naresh Kumar Kalra S/O Late Sh. Narayan Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Rafiq Son of Mohd. Ismail, Vs Kailash Chandra Sharma Son of Bajranglal

Shiv Ram Gurjar S/O Shri Gujar Mal Vs the State of Raj.

Managing Committee, Seth Peeramal Bal Prathmik Vidyalaya Vs Shri Naveen Jain

Bhanaram Gurjar S/O Bhagirathmal Gurjar Vs Shri Govind Mohan, Secretary

Jakir S/O Shri Nasiruddin Alias Nasir Ahmad, Vs Mohammad Sabir Alias Hamiduddin S/O Nasiruddin Alias Nasir Ahmad

Deepak Singh S/O Mohan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan