Ratan Lal vs Kanna Dangi
2021 Latest Caselaw 158 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1466/2020

1. Ratan Lal S/o Kanna Ji Dangi, Aged About 54 Years, Manwakheda, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Ganga D/o Kanna Ji Dangi W/o Khema Ji Dangi, Aged About 62 Years, Dangiyon Ka Guda, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Gameri D/o Kanna Ji Dangi W/o Tejram Ji Dangi, Aged About 60 Years, Eklingpura, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Gulabi W/o Kanna Ji Dangi W/o Ram Lal Ji Dangi, Aged About 52 Years, Manwakheda, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Kanna Dangi S/o Uda Ji Dangi, Aged About 83 Years, 6-A, Anand Vihar Colony, Hiran Magri, Sector-4, Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Sanjay @ Tulsi Ram Dangi S/o Kanna Ji Dangi, Aged About 50 Years, 6-A, Anand Vihar Colony, Hiran Magri, Sector-4, Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Uda S/o Deva Dangi, Manwakheda, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Rajesh S/o Naval Ram Dangi, Manwakheda, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

5. Roshan Lal S/o Hukmichand, Eklingpura, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Abhishek Pareek (through VC)
For Respondent(s)        :


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
                    Judgment / Order

06/01/2021

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being

aggrieved with the orders dated 05.01.2019 and 26.04.2019

(2 of 3) [CW-1466/2020]

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur

(hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court').

The trial court vide order dated 05.01.2019 has rejected two

applications preferred on behalf of the petitioners for impleading

them as defendants in the suit filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and

2 against the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and vide order dated

26.04.2019 it has rejected the application preferred on behalf of

the petitioners under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC

seeking review of the order dated 05.01.2019.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2

have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against

the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Contending therein that the

respondent Nos. 3 and 4 while using the similarity of their father's

name has executed power of attorney fraudulently and thereafter

sold the land. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have sought declaration

that the said power of attorney be declared null and void and

further sought permanent injunction to the effect that respondent

Nos. 3 to 5 be restrained from interfering in their possession and

peaceful enjoyment of the property in question.

In the said suit, applications were preferred on behalf of the

petitioners for impleading them as defendants solely on the

ground that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are claiming themselves

as owners of the land in question on the basis of a will, said to

have been executed in their favour, however, the said will is forged

one as the executor of the will had no right to alienate the

property in question because the said property is ancestral

property. The trial court has rejected the prayer of the petitioners

for being impleaded as party respondents vide order dated

05.01.2019 while observing that in the pending suit, the

(3 of 3) [CW-1466/2020]

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had questioned the execution of power of

attorney by the respondent No.3 in favour of the respondent No.4

and the legality of the said will, on the basis of which the

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are claiming themselves as owner of the

land in question, is not raised in the suit by any of the defendant.

The trial court is of the view that when the question

regarding the validity of the will is not before it, the applicants

cannot be treated as necessary or proper party in the suit filed by

the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The application filed on behalf of the

petitioners for reviewing of the order dated 05.01.2019 has also

been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 26.04.2019

reiterating the same reasons and for the reason that the

petitioners have failed to point out any mistake apparent on the

face of the record in the earlier order passed by it.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after

going through the material available on record, this Court is of the

opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in

passing the impugned order because in the suit the plaintiffs have

only challenged the execution of the power of attorney and

subsequent sale deed executed on that basis and the question

regarding the execution of will in their favour is not a point in

issue in the said suit.

Hence, no case for interference is made out in this writ

petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Surabhii/5-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)