HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 151/2021
Mahabir S/o Shri Jasrathi, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Nagla
Jeewana, Tehsil Kumher District Bharatpur.
----Petitioner-Defendant
Versus
1. Manju D/o Mahabir W/o Lakhan Singh, R/o Nagla
Jeewana, Tehsil Kumher Distirct Bharatpur.
2. Sanju D/o Mahabir W/o Kapil, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Nagla Jeewana, Tehsil Kumher Distirct Bharatpur.
3. Pawan S/o Shri Mahabir, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Nagla
Jeewana, Tehsil Kumher Distirct Bharatpur.
-Respondents-Plaintiffs
4. Govind Singh S/o Shri Rambabu, R/o Tuhiya Tehsil And District Bharatpur.
----Respondent-Defendant
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Moolchandani
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
01/04/2022
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the sale deed in question dated 16.07.2021, has been assailed in the revenue suit filed by respondent No.1 i.e. Manju, before the Assistant Collector, Kumher, Bharatpur by respondents on 30.07.2021. Thereafter, respondents No.1 to 3 have also filed civil suit before the District Judge, Bharatpur on 11.08.2021, seeking declaration of this sale deed as null and void.
Counsel for petitioner submits that respondents No.1 to 3 are claiming their ancestral and vested right in the suit (Downloaded on 06/04/2022 at 09:04:42 PM) (2 of 3) [CR-151/2021] lands by virtue of amendment under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Their case before the civil court is that suit lands were entered in the revenue record in name of their father as Karta Khandan, who have unauthorizedly sold their shares also, through sale deed dated 16.07.2021, therefore, the sale deed in question be declared as null and void qua vested coparcenary rights of respondents No.1 to 3/ plaintiffs.
Apart from this it also appears that one more revenue suit in relation to the same suit land is also pending since 2014. Prima facie, it appears that if respondents No.1 to 3/plaintiffs are claiming their coparcenary right, alleging the suit lands as the ancestral and properties of Hindu Undivided Family, for claiming such rights they can approach the civil court and cannot avail the two parallel remedies before the civil court as well as before the revenue court.
In this view of matter issue notice to respondents. Notices be given dasti.
Since, the instant revision petition arises against the order dated 11.11.2021 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Bharatpur in Civil Suit No.111/2021 whereby the learned trial court declined to stay the proceedings of civil suit in view of pendency of revenue suit.
In the given facts, the judgment referred by counsel for petitioner Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) through Natural Guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania and Ors. [(2019) 3 SCC 692] is not applicable. (Downloaded on 06/04/2022 at 09:04:42 PM)
(3 of 3) [CR-151/2021] Prima facie, this court finds that proceedings before civil court are sustainable, therefore, there is no case for grant of exparte stay on further proceedings of civil suit.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J SACHIN/16 (Downloaded on 06/04/2022 at 09:04:42 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)