Dismissed

Chauthmal S/O Late Shri Ramkumar v. Niwas S/O Late Shri Surajmal

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2025CW/109/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a trial court order taking an unregistered, unstamped agreement on record and exhibiting it in a partition suit, and dismissing the plaintiffs' review. The High Court found no error, noting the trial court had recorded that the agreement effected no transfer of property, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chauthmal S/O Late Shri Ramkumar Vs Niwas S/O Late Shri Surajmal — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:9419]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 109/2025

¶4

Chauthmal S/o Late Shri Ramkumar, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶5

Sanwarmal S/o Late Shri Ramkumar, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Niwas S/o Late Shri Surajmal, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶9

Satyanarayan S/o Late Shri Surajmal, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶10

Ratan Lal S/o Late Shri Mahadev (Deceased), Through Lrs

¶11

3/1. Manju Devi W/o Late Shri Ratan Lal, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶12

3/2. Prakash Alias Monu S/o Late Shri Ratan Lal, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶13

Raju S/o Late Shri Mahadev, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶14

Chiranjilal S/o Late Shri Mahadev (Deceased), Through Lrs

¶15

5/1. Tara Devi W/o Late Shri Chiranjilal, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶16

5/2. Mahendra Kumar S/o Late Shri Chiranjilal, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶17

5/3. Nand Kumar S/o Late Shri Chiranjilal, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶18

5/4. Sunita D/o Late Shri Chiranjilal, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶19

Sajjan Kumar Adopted Son Of Late Shri Gauri Dutt, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶20

Sunder S/o Late Shri Keshar Dev, Grandson Late Shri Chandmal, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:9419]

[CW-109/2025]

Jagdish S/o Late Shri Keshar Dev, Grandson Late Shri Chandmal, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶25

Kamal S/o Late Shri Keshar Dev, Grandson Late Shri Chandmal, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶26

Ganesh S/o Late Shri Keshar Dev, Grandson Late Shri Chandmal, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶27

Rajesh S/o Late Shri Keshar Dev, Grandson Late Shri Chandmal, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶28

Brajesh S/o Late Shri Sampat, Grandson Of Late Shri Keshar Dev, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶29

Inder Chandra Adopted Son Of Late Shri Sagarmal, Grandson Of Late Shri Birjuram, R/o Ward No. 9, Mohalla Madhoganj, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

¶30

Ratni Devi D/o Late Shri Bhagwana W/o Ramchandra, R/o Presently, Lothiya Via Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu.

¶31

----Respondents

¶32

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rahul Agarwal,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat,Adv.

¶33

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶34

Order

¶35

04/03/2025

¶36

This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitionersplaintiffs (for short “the plaintiffs”) against the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.4, Sikar in Civil Suit No.1706/2014 whereby the trial court partly allowed the application filed by respondent No.1-defendant (for short “the defendant”) under Order 8 Rule 3-A and order 13

[2025:RJ-JP:9419]

[CW-109/2025]

(3 of 4)

Rule 5(3) read with Section 151 CPC, took the original agreement on record and permitted to exhibit the same in evidence. They have also challenged the order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the trial court whereby the review application filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed.

¶41

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction against the defendants in which defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 8 Rule 3-A read with Order 13 Rule 5(3) CPC for taking the documents on record and after comparison thereof original documents be returned to them. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that trial court vide its order dated 24.10.2024 has wrongly partly allowed the application filed by the defendants and took the agreement on record.

¶42

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the said document was unregistered and unstamped. So, the said document can’t be taken on record.

¶43

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that plaintiffs filed an application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for reviewing the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the trial court but the trial court vide its order dated 28.11.2024 dismissed the review application filed by the plaintiffs. So, orders passed by the trial court be set aside.

¶44

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Principal Seat of this Court in the case of “ Rajendra S/o late Matu Ram Vs. Legal Heirs of Late Laxmi Narayan reported in 2024 O RJ(JD) 21596”.

[2025:RJ-JP:9419]

[CW-109/2025]

(4 of 4)

Learned counsel for the defendant(s) has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and submitted that on account of the said agreement, no transfer of property was done, so the trial court rightly allowed the application filed by him. So, the present civil writ petition filed by the plaintiffs being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.

¶49

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as learned counsel for the defendants.

¶50

It is an admitted position that the trial court while allowing the application filed by the defendant No.1 clearly mentioned that by the said agreement, no transfer of property was effectuated. So in my considered opinion, the trial court had not committed any error in partly allowing the application filed by the defendant No.1 and dismissing the review application. So, the present civil writ petition filed by the plaintiffs being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

¶51

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed of.

¶52

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶53

AVINASH GULERIA /100

Chauthmal S/O Late Shri Ramkumar v. Niwas S/O Late Shri Surajmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chauthmal S/O Late Shri Ramkumar v. Niwas S/O Late Shri Surajmal

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

Mohan S/O Shri Kanha Vs Additional District Judge, No. 1

Thakurji Shri Madan Mohan Ji Vs Smt. Jadawa Devi W/O

Saddeek S/O Rahimshah Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Jhunjhunuwala S/O Shri Kashi Prasad Jhunjhunuwala Vs Shri Raghunath Higher Secondary Education Society

Mahendra Kumar Meena S/O Ram Nath Meena Vs Shri Anand Kumar

Bhanwar Lal S/O Nand Lal Vs Kushal Singh Chaudhary S/O Shivnath Singh