Mamta Dangi vs Board Of Revenue
2021 Latest Caselaw 10545 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 300/2021 IN S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.2152/2020

Mamta Dangi D/o Shri Kishan Lal Dangi W/o Shri Lokesh Dangi, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Dogliyon Ki Magri, Bhuwana, Tehsil-Girva, District-Udaipur.

----Appellant-Petitioner Versus

1. Board Of Revenue, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Land Settlement Officer Cum Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur.

3. Bheru Lal S/o Shri Dudaji Dangi, Resident Of Bhuwana, District Udaipur.

4. Jagganath S/o Shri Dudaji Dangi, Resident Of Bhuwana, District Udaipur.

5. Khemraj S/o Shri Dudaji Dangi, Resident Of Bhuwana, District Udaipur.

6. Pushkar S/o Shri Vardi Chandji Dangi, Resident Of Bhuwana, District Udaipur.

7. Smt. Parta Bai W/o Late Shri Dudaji Dangi, Resident Of Bhuwana, District Udaipur.

8. Vardi Chand S/o Late Shri Dudaji Dangi, Resident Of Bhuwana, District Udaipur.

9. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Bardgaon, District-

Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Shah, Advocate

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 12/07/2021

(Per Vinit Kumar Mathur, J)

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant

against the order dated 15.03.2021 passed by learned Single

Judge, whereby, the writ petition preferred by the appellant has

been dismissed.

(2 of 3) [SAW-300/2021]

The present appellant being a respondent in the suit

preferred by plaintiff- Bherulal, moved an application under Order

7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as

'C.P.C.') before the trial Court and the same was allowed. Against

the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the First

Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated

22.01.2018 remanded the matter and directed the trial Court to

decide the question afresh after framing the issues and giving

proper opportunity to the parties for defending their case.

The order dated 22.01.2018 of the First Appellate Authority

was challenged by the appellant before the Board of Revenue.

The Board of Revenue rejected the appeal preferred by the

appellant vide its order dated 13.01.2020 affirming the order

passed by the First Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the orders

passed by the Board of Revenue as well as First Appellate

Authority, the appellant preferred writ petition before this Court

and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2021 by

the learned Single Judge.

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued

before us that the veracity of the Will cannot be adjudged by the

Revenue Court and the jurisdiction of the same vests in the Civil

Court. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application

preferred by the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the

appellant relies upon the judgment dated 24.01.2020 passed by

Larger Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition

No.6872/2013(KLR) Smt. Jayamma & Ors. V/s State of

Karnataka & Ors.

(3 of 3) [SAW-300/2021]

We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and

perused the relevant record.

We note that there are concurrent findings of the three

Courts starting from First Appellate Authority to the learned Single

Bench of this Court against the appellant. In the wake of the

same, we are not persuaded to re-appreciate the findings in the

appeal before us. We are in complete agreement with the orders

passed by the First Appellate Authority, Board of Revenue and the

learned Single Judge. Since the matter involves appreciation of

evidence, the question of validity of the Will even if it is there, the

First Appellate Court has not committed any error while

remanding the matter to the trial Court for deciding the same

afresh after framing the issues. It is a mixed question of law and

facts, therefore, the First Appellate Authority was right in

remanding the matter to the trial Court for deciding the issue

afresh after framing the issues.

By the orders impugned passed by the First Appellate

Authority, Board of Revenue and the learned Single Judge, no

prejudice has been caused to the appellant. The judgment of Smt.

Jayamma (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the

appellant has no application to the facts and circumstances of this

case.

In view of the discussions made above, we are not inclined

to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this

Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

                                    (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J                                                      (SABINA),J
                                    34-Anil Singh/SunilS/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)