HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14004/2022
1. Devi Singh S/o Sohan Singh, Aged About 74 Years, 10 Green Park, College Road, Savitri Nagar, Indian Overseas Bank, 6-P-8, Vasai, Mumbai West, Presently Residing At 189, Rajpurohito Ka Bas, Indrawada, Pail, Rajasthan.
2. Narayan Singh S/o Sohan Singh, Aged About 70 Years, Opposite M/s Vitkrya Automobile Petrol Pump, Village Post Reodar, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.
3. Harish Chandra S/o Sohan Singh, Aged About 54 Years, 175, Rajpurohito Ka Bass, Indrawada, Somesar, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3. The Revenue Appellate Authority, District Pali, Rajasthan.
4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan.
5. The Tehsildar Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan.
6. Smt. Fuli D/o Pabudan, Indrabada, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan.
7. LRs Of Smt. Ganga, D/o Late Pabudan 7/1 Shaitan Singh S/o Pur Singh, Indrabada, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan.
7/2 Kamla D/o Pur Singh, Indrabada, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan.
7/3 Hatu D/o Pur Singh, Indrabada, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan.
8. LRs Of Shri Guman Singh, S/o Late Pabudan Singh 8/1 Dhagli Kanwar W/o Late Guman Singh, Indrabada, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan.
8/2 Kamla Kanwar W/o Late Guman Singh, Indrabada, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan.
8/3 Raju Singh S/o Late Guman Singh, Indrabada, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 09:20:15 PM)
(2 of 6) [CW-14004/2022]
8/4 Shyam Singh S/o Late Guman Singh, Indrabada, Tehsil
Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan.
8/5 Parbat Singh S/o Late Guman Singh, Indrabada, Tehsil
Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan.
8/6 Prem Singh S/o Late Guman Singh, Indrabada, Tehsil
Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan.
8/7 Jamna Kanwar D/o Late Guman Singh, Indrabada, Tehsil
Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan.
9. LRs Of Shri Govardhan Singh:
9/1 Smt. Samand Kanwar W/o Late Govardhan Singh,
Indrabada, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan. 9/2 Neela D/o Late Govardhan Singh, Indrabada, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan.
9/3 Shaitan Singh S/o Late Govardhan Singh, Indrabada, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan. PROFORMA RESPONDENT:
10. Megh Singh S/o Sohan Singh, 138/1, Govind Dipa Vechile State, Singapur Market, Route No. 25, Madras (Chennai), Tamil Nadu.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
05/01/2023
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the judgment dated 11/4/2022 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby, the appeal filed by the respondents no. 6 to 8 has been allowed and the judgment dated 30/10/2000 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali has been set aside while restoring the order dated 21/9/1994 passed by the Addl. Collector, Desuri.
(Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 09:20:15 PM)
(3 of 6) [CW-14004/2022] The suit was filed by Mst. Ganga and Phooli inter alia with the averments that the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 2 and 3 are children of Pabu Dan and defendant no.1 Mst. Dhapu is wife of late Pabu Dan. Pabu Dan, who was khatedar of land ad measuring 39 bigha 12 biswa, who had died about 10 years prior to filing of the suit. On account of his death, the land in question fell in the share of plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 to 3 under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ('the Act, 1956'), based on which mutation no. 175 dated 9/10/1973 was filled, which should have been the basis for revenue entries, however, defendant no. 8, Tehsildar, has made alteration in the entries and only name of defendant nos. 1 to 3 were indicated in the Jamabandi for the year 2034-37. The plaintiffs were entitled to get their 1/5 th share each mutated qua the said land. The defendant Goverdhan Singh has transferred 1/3rd land on 17/10/1981 to defendant nos. 4 to 7, which transfer was void qua the plaintiffs and plaintiffs were not bound by the said transfer. It was claimed that the plaintiffs were sought to be dispossessed from the land in question and, therefore, injunction was sought against the defendants. It was prayed that the plaintiffs have 1/5 th share each, which be declared and respondents be restrained from interfering with their possession.
Written statement was filed by defendant nos. 1 to 3 supporting the averments made in the plaint. It was claimed that the 1/3rd share was transferred for Rs.19,000/-, however, the consideration has not been paid.
Written statement was also filed by defendant nos. 4 to 7 inter alia claiming that Pabu Dan died before coming into force the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the land was 'Maufi Doli' and that the (Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 09:20:15 PM) (4 of 6) [CW-14004/2022] defendants were in possession of the property since the transfer took place. The suit was barred by limitation, the defendants have become owners by adverse possession.
The Additional Collector framed as many as 10 issues and came to the conclusion that the land ad measuring 39 bigha 12 biswa be recorded in the name of plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 and 2 to the extent of 1/5th share each and qua rest 1/5th share the same be recorded in favour of defendant nos. 4 to 7.
Feeling aggrieved the defendant nos. 4 to 7 filed appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority. The Revenue Appellate Authority by its judgment dated 30/10/2000 (Annex.3) came to the conclusion that as during the pendency of the suit, Goverdhan Singh had died and his legal representatives were not brought on record, the decree passed against the dead person was void. As 1/3rd share was transferred by Goverdhan Singh and possession was handed over to the purchasers, simple suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable. The Revenue Appellate Authority also came to the conclusion that the mutation which took place on 17/10/1981 has not been questioned and that it was not proved that Pabu Dan died after 1956 and consequently set aside the judgment passed by the Addl. Collector.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent nos. 4 to 7 filed appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue came to the conclusion that non-impleadment of legal representatives of Goverdhan Singh was factually incorrect as the application in this regard was filed on 27/8/1991 and the same was allowed on 18/11/991, only because the title was not amended, the Revenue Appellate Authority committed mistake in accepting the said plea. The Board of Revenue also came to the conclusion that the land in (Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 09:20:15 PM) (5 of 6) [CW-14004/2022] question, after death of Pabu Dan, was recorded in the name of all the five legal representatives as 1/5th share each, which mutation was subsequently tinkered by recording the same in favour of wife and two sons of deceased Pabu Dan for which there was no basis and that in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma : 2020 (3) DNJ (SC) 817 the plea regarding daughters not having share in the suit property was baseless and consequently allowed the appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to make submissions that the Board of Revenue was not justified in setting aside the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority inasmuch as the same was based on the legal position and the facts of the case, wherein, it was apparent that the land was recorded in the name of wife and two sons of deceased Pabu Dan and, therefore, Goverdhan Singh had 1/3rd share in the property, which was transferred to the petitioners and, therefore, the claim made by the daughters seeking 1/5th share each in the property has no substance.
Further submissions were made that the petitioners being bonafide purchasers of the property in question, the Board of Revenue was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record.
The Addl. Collector as well as the Board of Revenue have found that after the death of Pabu Dan, the land in question was recorded in the name of all five legal representatives including the plaintiffs - daughters. On account of which proceedings and at (Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 09:20:15 PM) (6 of 6) [CW-14004/2022] whose instance the revenue entries were changed from 05 legal representatives to only three i.e. wife and two sons, has not at all been proved by the petitioners to indicate that how the plaintiffs - two daughters lost their right in the property owned by Pabu Dan. Once it was found that the daughters had share and their names were recorded in the revenue record and by no valid proceedings, rather only by interpolation in the revenue record the same was recorded in the name of wife and two sons of deceased Pabu Dan, the same cannot take away the rights of two daughters in the land in question, therefore, the Board of Revenue was justified in setting aside the judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority.
So far as the plea raised regarding the petitioners being the bonafide purchasers is concerned, the fact that only Goverdhan Singh had transferred the property in favour of the petitioners, Goverdhan Singh could not have transferred more than what right he had in the property, which was 1/5 th share only, therefore, the Addl. Collector by his judgment dated 21/9/1994 has specifically directed that the land to the extent of 1/5 th share of Goverdhan Singh, be recorded in favour of the petitioners herein, i.e. the transferees from Goverdhan Singh, which direction is wholly just and fair and which direction has now been upheld by the Board of Revenue.
In view of the above discussion, the petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 34-baweja/-
(Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 09:20:15 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)