Rajendra Kumar vs Lekhraj
2021 Latest Caselaw 8864 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4066/2020

Rajendra Kumar S/o Nawal Ram, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Deshantari, R/o Near Ganga School Hamirpura, Deshantariyo Ka Mohalla, Barmer District, Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Lekhraj S/o Lalchand, Aged About 53 Years, through their legal representatives:

1/1. Kapil s/o Late Lekhraj 1/2. Arvind s/o Late Lekhraj 1/3. Asha Devi w/o Late Lekhraj All are B/c Deshantari, R/o Anandpura, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer.

2. Jairam S/o Lalchand, B/c Deshantari, R/o Deshantariyo Ki Gali, Shastri Nagar, Barmer Tehsil and District Barmer.

3. M/s Golden Dunes Real State Pvt. Ltd., Cosmo Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Through Director, Babulal S/o Ashu Lal, b/c Oswal, R/o Near Jain Dhani, Barmer City, Tehsil and District Barmer.

4. Babulal S/o Ashu Lal, B/c Oswal, R/o Near Jain Dhani, Barmer City, Tehsil and District Barmer.

5. Ratan Lal S/o Mohan Lal.

6. Suresh Kumar S/o Late Mohan Lal.

7. Ganpatraj S/o Late Mohan Lal B/c Oswal, R/o Bhagto Ki Gali, Barmer, Tehsil and District Barmer.

8. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Barmer, Tehsil and District Barmer.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Moti Singh
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Sanjeet Purohit.
                               Mr. Roshan Lal.



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                    Order



                                           (2 of 18)              [CW-4066/2020]

Reserved on 25/03/2021
Pronounced on 06/04/2021

1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being

taken while hearing the matters in Court.

2. The matter comes up on an applications under Article 226(3)

of the Constitution of India preferred on behalf of respondent No.3

& 4 respectively, for vacation of the stay order dated 12.06.2020

passed by this Court. However, with the consent of learned

counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally.

3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the

following reliefs:

"A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction order may kindly issued and quashed & set aside the order dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure-5) passed by Senior Civil Judge and order dated 03.02.2020 (Annexure-

11) passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge, in Civil Appeal No.23/2019. B. by an appropriate writ, order or direction that order may kindly be issued and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. against the respondents may kindly be allowed as prayed.

C. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem it just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued.

D. Costs of this writ petition may kindly be may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

4. As the record of the case would reveal, on 27.07.1964, a

sale deed was executed by Navlaram (father of the petitioner-

planitiff) and Motiram (uncle of the petitioner-plaintiff), being

original khatedar of the land khasra No.1192 (rakba 35 bigha 2

(3 of 18) [CW-4066/2020]

biswa) situated in erstwhile Village Barmer (as per the present

Jamabandi, Rakba 35 bigha 3 Biswa Barani Soyam situated at

Revenue Village, Barmer City), in favour of one Smt. Meti Devi

w/o Late Shri Lal Chand and their minors sons, namely, Mohan @

Lekhraj and Babu @ Jairam. Defendants No.1 and 2 - Lekhraj and

Jairam are sons of Late Shri Lal Chand. However, thereafter,

another sale deed dated 28.05.1973 (registered on 29.05.1973),

in respect of the same land in question, was executed by Navla

Ram s/o Dana Ram, in favour of Bhanwarlal, Mohanlal,

Satyanarayan, Parasmal, Dharmchand, Mewaram, Bhagwandas

and Babulal. Thereafter, Satyanarayan s/o Dwarkadas, Parasmal

s/o Giriram, Dharmchand s/o Birdichand, Mewaram s/o Hajariram

and Bhagwandas s/o Dwarkadas, who were holding 3/4th share in

the land in question, pursuant to the concerned sale deed dated

28.05.1973, sold their respective share in the land in question to

the respondent-Ms. Golden Dunues Real Estate Private Limited,

Jaipur (respondent-Company), through various sale deeds i.e.

dated 05.01.2012 and 03.02.2012 respectively, and accordingly,

entry No.3400, as approved on 21.02.2012, was made in its

favour in the revenue records, and also the necessary possession

was also handed over to the respondent-Company, thereby in the

relevant revenue records, 3/4th share in respect of the land in

question was recorded in the name of the respondent-Company,

and remaining 1/4 share in the name of Babulal s/o Aasulal, and

Ratanlal, Suresh and Ganpat (sons of Late Mohanlal).

5. On 06.11.2007, the Public Health and Engineering

Department, Government of Rajasthan issued a notification under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 for acquisition of the

land measuring 35.03 bigha of Khasra No.1192 situated at

(4 of 18) [CW-4066/2020]

Barmer, i.e. the land in question. Thereafter, certain objections

were filed pursuant to the said notification, and after considering

such objections, the PHED, Government of Rajasthan, while

issuing another notification dated 22.08.2008, had withdrawn the

earlier acquisition notification dated 06.11.2007.

6. In the year 2012, Lekhraj and Jairam - both sons of Late Shri

Lal Chand - preferred an appeal before the Court of Sub Divisional

Officer, Barmer under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act,

1955 challenging the mutation made pursuant to the concerned

sale deed, in favour of Bhanwarlal and others, alleging therein that

in view of the earlier sale deed dated 27.07.1964 made in favour

of Smt. Meti Devi w/o Late Shri LaL Chand, the subsequent sale

deed executed by Nawla Ram was not valid. The said appeal was

however, dismissed vide judgment dated 17.08.2012.

7. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment dated

17.08.2012, Lekh Raj and Jairam preferred an appeal before the

Additional Divisional Commissioner, which, after hearing the

concerned parties, too was rejected vide judgment dated

12.04.2013.

8. The aforesaid judgment dated 12.04.2013 also came to be

challenged by way of a revision petition before the learned Board

of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer. However, during pendency of the

said revision petition, a compromise was arrived at between the

concerned parties (Mohan @ Lekhraj s/o Lal Chand & Babu @

Jairam s/o Lal Chand - First Party And M/s. Golden Dunues Real

Estate Pvt. Ltd. And Babulal s/o Aasulal - Second Party) on

05.04.2017 and the necessary application in respect of such

compromise was moved before the learned Board of Revenue on

05.04.2017 itself for amicable and out of court settlement of the

(5 of 18) [CW-4066/2020]

dispute between them. Accordingly, in light of such compromise

between the concerned parties, the aforesaid revision petition was

decided by the learned Board of Revenue on 26.04.2017.

9. The record of the case would further reveal that before

conclusion of the aforesaid proceedings, on 06.08.2014, before

the learned Senior Civil Judge, Barmer, a suit bearing No.10/14

(new suit No.01/15) was instituted by defendants No.1 & 2 -

Lekhraj and Jairam - both sons of Late Shri Lal Chand - seeking to

declare the first sale deed dated 27.07.1964 executed in favour of

Smt. Meti Devi w/o Late Shri Lal Chand and their minor sons, in

respect of sale of the land in question, as a legal and valid sale,

while seeking cancellation of the second sale deed dated

28.05.1973 (registered on 29.05.1973), in respect of the same

land in question. However, the said suit was dismissed for want of

prosecution on 10.02.2017.

10. Thereafter, on 28.11.2017, the petitioner-plaintiff instituted a

suit for cancellation of the sale deeds dated 27.07.1964 as well as

28.05.1973 (registered on 29.05.1973) before the learned Senior

Civil Judge, Barmer, on the ground of the concerned sales of the

land in question, vide the aforementioned sale deeds, being false,

fabricated and forged. Alongwith the said suit, an application

seeking temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the

Code of Civil Procedure (in short, 'CPC') was also preferred by the

petitioner-plaintiff. In the said suit, it was categorically stated that

after rejection of the earlier suit, since the defendants concerned

in collusion with each other, were threatening to dispossess the

present petitioner-plaintiff from the land in question, therefore, he

had filed the subsequent suit.

                                          (6 of 18)                  [CW-4066/2020]



11.   In   the   aforementioned         subsequent          suit   filed   by   the

petitioner-plaintiff, it was stated that the concerned Bhoomi

Parcha Lagaan in respect of the land in question was issued, at the

time of settlement, in favour of Nawla Ram s/o Dana Ram (father

of the petitioner-plaintiff) and Motiram s/o Dana Ram (uncle of the

petitioner-plaintiff) being khatedar of the said land. Nawla Ram

and Motiram were both real brothers and were members of the

joint family.

On 17.06.1972, Moti Ram (uncle of the petitioner-plaintiff), who

was unmarried, and thus, having no survivor/heir, had expired,

and thus, the khatedari rights of Late Motiram, were thereafter

vested in Navla Ram, apart from his own khatedari rights in the

land in question. However, thereafter on 05.02.1996, petitioner's-

plaintiff's father Navla Ram expired, and on 11.08.2007, his

mother Smt. Meena Devi also died, as a result whereof, the

petitioner-plaintiff became the sole owner and khatedar of the

land in question.

In the suit, it was also stated that on 03.02.2016, the petitioner-

plaintiff came to know about filing of the earlier civil suit only on

03.02.2016, and soon thereafter on 26.04.2016, he had filed an

application for his impleadment in the said suit, and accordingly,

on 19.10.2016, he was ordered to be impleaded as party in the

earlier suit.

12. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Barmer, thereafter, upon

hearing all the parties before it, passed an order on 28.05.2019,

whereby the aforementioned application filed by the petitioner-

plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was dismissed. Aggrieved

by the said order dated 28.05.2019, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an

(7 of 18) [CW-4066/2020]

appeal before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge

No.1, Barmer under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC.

13. The learned appellate court vide order dated 01.08.2019,

after hearing the parties, passed an interim injunction order with

regard to non-alienation/sale of the suit property in question,

during pendency of the appeal. However, on 18.01.2020, an

application under Section 24 of the CPC came to be filed by the

petitioner-plaintiff before the learned District & Sessions Judge,

Barmer seeking transfer of the matter from the Court of learned

Additional District Judge No.1, Barmer to another court of

competent jurisdiction, for the reasons mentioned therein. But

thereafter, during pendency of the application under Section 24 of

CPC, the learned appellate court vide order dated 03.02.2020, had

dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff, while

affirming the order dated 28.05.2019 passed by the learned trial

court. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred by the

petitioner-plaintiff.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that the

sale in question, vide the sale deed dated 28.05.1973, was said to

be made by Navla Ram (father of the petitioner-plaintiff) s/o Dana

Ram, in favour of Bhanwarlal, Mohanlal, Satyanarayan, Parasmal,

Dharmchand, Mewaram, Bhagwandas and Babulal; the said sale

deed was stated to be registered on 29.05.1973.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that

however, at the time of registration of the sale deed dated

29.05.1973, Motiram s/o Dana Ram was introduced as Motiram

s/o Navla Ram, whereas it is an undisputed fact that the said

Motiram, was the real brother of Navla Ram, and further, Motiram

(8 of 18) [CW-4066/2020]

had expired on 17.06.1972, i.e. much before the registration of

the sale deed on 29.05.1973.

Learned counsel further submitted that the fact of death of

Motiram is also clearly evident from the death certificate issued by

the competent authority, which was also placed on record before

the learned trial court, and in the said death certificate, particular

of Moti was mentioned as Moti s/o Dana Ram. Thus, as per

learned counsel, the sale in question was forged and fabricated on

this count alone, as it is a settled proposition of law that no sale

can be executed in the name of a dead person.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff also submitted

that the matter pertains to passing of the appropriate orders for

temporary injunction during pendency of the aforementioned suit;

however, the said prayer was declined by the learned trial court,

while observing that the petitioner-plaintiff was not in possession

of the suit property in question and he has also not filed any suit

for recovery of the possession thereof.

Learned counsel also submitted that the learned trial court has

also erred in rejecting the aforementioned application for

temporary injunction on the ground that in absence of the

absolute possession of the suit property with the petitioner-

plaintiff; the plaintiff-petitioner has not produced any

documentary evidence in relation to his possession; and the suit

was filed after an inordinate delay of 30 years from the date of the

sale in question.

Thus, as per learned counsel, such rejection of the application

under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was contrary to the settled legal

proposition laid down in respect of temporary injunction.

(9 of 18) [CW-4066/2020]

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

against rejection of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2

CPC by the learned trial court, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an

appeal before the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Barmer.

However, as per learned counsel, after filing of the said appeal,

which was registered on 06.07.2019, the petitioner-plaintiff also

filed an application on 18.01.2020 under Order 24 of CPC seeking

transfer of the appeal to any other court of competent jurisdiction

within the Balotra Judgeship.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that

however, despite the aforementioned application under Order 24

of CPC remained pending consideration, the learned appellate

court conducted the hearing of the appeal and dismissed the

appeal preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff on 03.02.2020, that

too, without appreciating the relevant facts and without

considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner-

plaintiff.

As per learned counsel, such dismissal of the appeal was made by

the learned appellate court, while observing that the petitioner-

plaintiff was not having an absolute possession of the suit

property in question, and the mutation was entered in the name of

the concerned purchaser, as also the suit was filed after a long

period of time, from the date of the sale in question. Such

grounds, as per learned counsel, are not in conformity with the

principles laid down in the law relating to temporary injunction.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff also harped upon

the fact that the reasons assigned in the rejection orders

impugned herein are also not correct, as there was a specific

pleading in the suit with regard to possession of the petitioner

(10 of 18) [CW-4066/2020]

upon the land in question, and such pleading is prima facie

substantiated by the document in relation to compromise

executed by the respondents before the learned Board of

Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, wherein it was admitted by them that

the possession of the land in question remained with Navla (father

of the present petitioner) and Late Moti (brother of Navla).

Learned counsel thus, submitted that there was prima facie

evidence on record before the learned courts below with regard to

possession of the petitioner over the land in question; however

since the respondents had raised a dispute with regard to such

possession, therefore, burden to disprove such fact lies upon the

respondents, and not upon the present petitioner-plaintiff.

20. On a specific query being put by this Court to the learned

counsel for the petitioner with regard to knowledge of the

registered sale deed dated 29.05.1973, learned counsel submitted

that he has placed on record copy of the plaint (Annexure-13)

seeking cancellation of the sale dated 28.05.1973 (registered on

29.05.1973) as well as permanent injunction, instituted by legal

heirs (sons) of Late Lal Chand before the learned Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Barmer on 06.08.2014 against the other

respondents.

Learned counsel also submitted that as soon as the petitioner

came to know about institution of such suit as well as his non-

impleadment therein, the petitioner had filed an application for his

impleadment as party-defendant in the said suit; such application

was allowed by the learned trial court vide its order dated

09.10.2016, and accordingly, the petitioner was impleaded as

party defendant in the suit.

(11 of 18) [CW-4066/2020]

However, as per learned counsel since the said suit filed by the

legal representatives of Late Lal Chand was dismissed for non-

prosecution by the learned trial court on 10.02.2017, therefore,

the petitioner-plaintiff had filed the present suit in question on

28.11.2017, on account of the fact that he was threatened by the

other defendants that he will be dispossessed from the land in

question.

21. As regards the contention of the respondents before the

learned court below that a revenue proceeding was initiated by

the respondents No.1 & 2, wherein the petitioner was impleaded

as party, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submitted that

it is an admitted fact that no notice in regard to such proceeding

was served upon the petitioner, and thus, the judgment dated

17.08.2012 was an ex parte judgment. Thus, as per learned

counsel, the petitioner-plaintiff, came to know about the

proceedings as well as the sale, for the first time, on 03.02.2016,

whereafter, he had filed an application for impleadment in the suit

filed by the legal heirs of Late Lal Chand.

22. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the

petitioner-plaintiff relied upon the precedent law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda (D) by Lrs. Vs. M.

Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs.& Anr., reported in 2004 DNJ

(SC) 263, wherein it has been held that it is the settled

possession or effective possession of a person, without title, which

would entitle him to protect his possession even as against the

true owner. Learned counsel thus, submitted that the question of

title, as per the said precedent law, will always be subject to the

trial of the suit, and without adopting the due process of law, the

(12 of 18) [CW-4066/2020]

person, who is in settled possession, cannot be dispossessed from

the suit property.

23. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel for the

petitioner on the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court at

Jaipur Bench in Peer Gulam Naseer vs. Peer Gulam Jelanee

(S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 657/1986 decided on

28.10.1998), wherein it was held that the lower courts should

not have decided the controversy finally raised in the pleadings by

the parties at the stage of deciding the application for temporary

injunction; serious questions raised regarding succession therein

have been raised and the same can be finally decided only after

the parties may have led the oral and documentary evidence.

Learned counsel, submitted that in the said case it was also held

that the finding on the merit of the suit is not required at the

stage of temporary injunction, and it can only be decided after the

trial of the suit, and till then, by way of status quo order, the suit

property needs to be protected.

24. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance

on the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in

Narendra Singh Rajawat & Ors. Vs. Thakur Mohan Singh

Kanota & Ors., reported in AIR 2002 Raj. 2018, wherein it

was held that it is well settled that while granting temporary

injunction, the Court cannot be regarded to deal with the suit on

merits. It was further held that the proceedings pertaining to

grant of temporary injunctions are supplemental proceedings and

the Court should refrain from giving a finding on the merits of the

case. It was also held that a person who seeks a temporary

injunction must satisfy the Court as to the insistence of certain

conditions, namely, (i) there is a serious question to be tried in the

(13 of 18) [CW-4066/2020]

suit and that on the facts before the Court there is a probability of

his being entitled to the relief asked for by him; (ii) the Court's

interference is necessary to protect him from the species of injury

which the Court calls irreparable, before his legal right can be

established on trial; and (iii) the comparative mischief or

inconvenience which is likely to issue from withholding the

injustice will be greater than that which is likely to arise from

granting it.

25. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

petitioner-plaintiff has raised an issue with regard to the fake,

fabricated and forged sale, which is executed in the name of a

dead person, alongwith a fake identity. Learned counsel also

submitted that the sale was not performed by the petitioner's

father, as he was an illiterate person and cannot put his

signatures, and further, the mutation entry was not made since

long, and also, the possession of the suit property in question was

never transferred by the petitioner or his parents or other

member, including his uncle Motiram, to any other person.

26. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that all the

questions involved in the matter can only be settled by the trial

court, after taking evidence - documentary as well as oral -

during the course of trial of the original suit, and thus, prior to

deciding all the issues, if the land is alienated and the petitioner is

dispossessed from the suit property in question, the whole

purpose of instituting the suit will be defeated. Thus, as per

learned counsel, the suit property is required to be protected by

way of temporary injunction, until final disposal of the original suit

pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Barmer.

(14 of 18) [CW-4066/2020]

27. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that in

view of the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the

petitioner, it is clear that the learned courts below have erred in

passing the impugned orders, more specifically, when both the

parties have raised their rival claims; further, the finding with

regard to possession is also erroneous, and the findings with

regard to documentary evidence are pre-mature and against the

provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, therefore, in such

circumstances, the intervention of this Court is warranted in this

case.

28. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents

have raised certain preliminary objections.

Learned counsels submitted that the learned courts below have

concurrently rejected the application for temporary injunction filed

by the petitioner-plaintiff, as no prima facie case was found in his

favour.

Learned counsels further submitted that the present petition is in

the nature of certiorari, wherein the petitioner ought to have

pointed out error apparent in the impugned orders; however, the

petitioner has completely failed to do so.

Learned counsels also submitted that it is a settled proposition of

law that without establishing a prima facie case, the injunction

cannot be granted against the recorded khatedar/true owner, and

thus, the learned trial court was perfectly justified in passing the

impugned order, rejecting the application for temporary injunction

filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, and also, the learned appellate

court was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-

plaintiff against the said order passed by the learned trial court

dismissing the application for temporary injunction.

(15 of 18) [CW-4066/2020]

Learned counsels further submitted that the suit in question was

preferred after the expiry of more than 45 years from the date of

execution of the sale deed/mutation entry, and therefore, the

learned courts below were right in concurrently declining to grant

any relief to the petitioner-plaintiff.

Learned counsels also submitted that the petitioner has willfully

and deliberately not brought the substantial and material facts to

the knowledge of this Court, and thus, his conduct in concealing

such substantial and material facts, disentitles him from seeking

any relief from this Court.

29. Learned counsels for the respondents further submitted that

during the lifetime of Nawla Ram, father of the present petitioner-

plaintiff, no dispute was ever raised by the petitioner in regard to

the sale of the land in question.

Learned counsels also submitted that the petitioner has preferred

the suit seeking cancellation of the sale deeds dated 27.07.1964

and 29.05.1973 on the ground that he was having no knowledge

about the execution of the said sale deeds; however, the present

petitioner-plaintiff was party in all the earlier litigation in regard to

the land in question, but despite sufficient service of notice issued

by the competent court, the petitioner neither contested the

matters, nor raised any objection, whatsoever. Thus, as per

learned counsels, the pleading of the petitioner with regard to

having no knowledge about the concerned litigation in regard to

the land in question is not true, as even the petitioner has not

been able to substantiate such a plea by either documentary or

oral evidence.

30. Learned counsels for the respondents further submitted that

the learned trial court in the impugned order rejecting the

(16 of 18) [CW-4066/2020]

petitioner's application under Section 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC has

observed that the petitioner is neither having possession over the

land in question, nor he has submitted any document/evidence to

substantiate his claim regarding possession over the land in

question. Learned counsels also submitted that the learned trial

court has clearly observed, in view of the Site Commissioner's

Report called by the competent court in another suit in respect of

the land in question, that the defendants-respondents were

having possession over the land in question, and thus, both the

learned courts below were perfectly justified in concurrently

declining the prayer made by the petitioner-plaintiff for grant of

temporary injunction.

31. As per learned counsels for the respondents, even in the

aforementioned notification dated 06.11.2007, the land in

question was shown in the name of the persons, as owners

thereof, from whom the respondent-Company had purchased the

land in question, and therefore, such sale in favour of the

respondent-Company was valid and lawful.

32. Learned counsels for the respondents also submitted that the

present petitioner-plaintiff has launched the criminal proceedings

vide FIR No.0167/2017, wherein, after due investigation, the

concerned investigating agency has filed final report/closure report

i.e. FR No.01 dated 14.09.2017. As per learned counsels, while

concluding such investigation, it was found by the concerned

investigating agency that Navla Ram father of the petitioner had

sold the property in question once on 27.07.1964 to Smt. Meti

Devi, Mohan and Babu, and thereafter, also sold the same land on

28.05.1973 to Bhanwarlal and others. Learned counsels further

submitted that the concerned investigating agency also concluded

(17 of 18) [CW-4066/2020]

that Navla Ram, father of the petitioner had sold the same

property twice to different persons, while taking money as

consideration in lieu of such sales, from two different purchasers,

and thus, has committed an offence of cheating; however, the

concerned investigating authority has filed the final report/closure

report on 14.09.2017, on account of demise of Navla Ram on

15.02.1996 (as mentioned in the final report).

33. Learned counsels for the respondents also submitted that the

petitioner has preferred an application under Section 24 of CPC

without stating any substantial, sufficient and cogent reason

therefor, rather on baseless apprehension, with the only motive to

delay the adjudication of the appeal before the learned appellate

court, and thus, mere pleading on the part of the petitioner-

plaintiff regarding pendency of the application under Section 24 of

CPC, was not at all a sufficient ground to keep the appeal pending.

As per learned counsels, mere pendency of an application under

Section 24 of CPC would not preclude the competent court from

adjudicating the appeal or any matter pending consideration

before it; more so, when the petitioner-plaintiff had even filed the

suit after an inordinate and unexplained delay, and had also failed

to establish any prima facie case in his favour, on merits.

34. This Court has carefully perused the record as well as

considered the submissions made by learned counsels for the

parties, and does not find any reason why the concurrent findings

arrived at by the learned courts below be disturbed at this stage

of the litigation.

35. This Court also takes note of the fact that the petitioner has

tried to raise the dispute regarding ownership of the land in

question, which was validly transferred by his own father, Navla

(18 of 18) [CW-4066/2020]

Ram, after a lapse of more than 45 years from the date of

execution of the sale deed and the entries of mutation etc.

36. The learned court below has rightly held that Navla Ram, the

father of the petitioner had sold the land on 27.07.1964 to Smt.

Meti Devi, and thereafter, had executed another sale deed dated

28.05.1973 in favour of Bhanwarlal, Mohanlal, Satyanarayan,

Parasmal, Dharmchand, Mewaram, Bhagwandas and Babulal. The

contesting parties between the sale deed have already settled the

matter.

37. Thus, this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner, who

has now stepped into the shoes of his father Navla Ram, cannot

retrospectively undo the legal status created by his own father, in

respect of the land in question. Moreover, no valid explanation has

been given by the petitioner for the cause not having been taken

up by him for last 45 years. Thus, the concurrent findings of the

learned courts below do not deserve any interference by this Court

at this stage.

38. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner do

not substantiate the case of the petitioner.

39. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. The stay

application also stands dismissed. All pending applications stand

disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)