Jagdish S/O Lalaram vs Kailash S/O Gangaram
2021 Latest Caselaw 7428 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13953/2021

1.     Jagdish S/o Lalaram, R/o Ward No. 02, Bandikui, Tehsil
       Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
2.     Deepak S/o Mohankant, R/o Ward No. 02, Bandikui, Tehsil
       Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
3.     Rajesh S/o Mohankant, R/o Ward No. 02, Bandikui, Tehsil
       Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
4.     Minakshi D/o Mohankant, R/o Ward No. 02, Bandikui,
       Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
5.     Pradeep S/o Mohankant, R/o Ward No. 02, Bandikui,
       Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.     Kailash S/o Gangaram, R/o Ward No. 02, Bandikui, Tehsil
       Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
2.     Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Bandikui, District
       Dausa.
3.     Director/ Chairman, Municipal Board, Bandikui, District
       Dausa.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Harendra Neel
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Umesh Vyas


          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
                         Judgment / Order

09/12/2021

1. Petitioners have preferred this Writ Petition aggrieved by

order dated 30.08.2017 whereby an application filed by the

petitioners for injunction was rejected and against order dated

11.11.2021 whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioners was

rejected by the Appellate Court.

(2 of 3) [CW-13953/2021]

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the

property in dispute was purchased in the name of the Gangaram.

However, money was contributed by other brothers also. It is also

contended that the respondent no. 1 happens to be the son of

petitioner and he is threatening to dispossess the petitioners, for

which a suit was filed. It is also contended that in the partition

suit, petitioners had prayed for partition of the disputed land,

however, the Courts below have rejected the application under

Order 39 Rule 1 and 2.

3. It is argued that the respondent is threatening to dispossess

the petitioners from their constructed house.

4. I have considered the contentions and have perused the

record.

5. In the plaint, petitioners have claimed partition of open plot

wherein there is no construction, however, before this Court,

petitioners have claimed that he should not be dispossessed from

his house.

6. From perusal of the orders passed by the Court, it is evident

that sale deed executed in favour of the Gangaram was dated

04.04.1962. The fact that on certain portions, brothers have

constructed their houses is not disputed by the respondent in the

reply filed before the Court. The Courts below after considering

the pleadings of the parties and relevant material on record did

not find it to a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. The

balance of convenience and irreparable loss were also not made

out in favour of the petitioners. The Courts below also came to the

conclusion that petitioners have not been able to establish that the

property was purchased by the joint funds in name of father of

respondent no-1. The prayer made before this Court was not there

(3 of 3) [CW-13953/2021]

in the suit filed by the petitioners and the same cannot be granted

by this Court. I do not find any perversity in the order passed by

the Court below, hence, I do not find any force in the present writ

petition.

7. This Civil Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed.

8. Stay application also stands disposed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /31

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)