Rajasthan High Court
Mahabir S/O Shri Jasrathi vs Manju D/O Mahabir W/O Lakhan Singh on 1 April, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 151/2021
Mahabir S/o Shri Jasrathi, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Nagla
Jeewana, Tehsil Kumher District Bharatpur.
----Petitioner-Defendant
Versus
1. Manju D/o Mahabir W/o Lakhan Singh, R/o Nagla
Jeewana, Tehsil Kumher Distirct Bharatpur.
2. Sanju D/o Mahabir W/o Kapil, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Nagla Jeewana, Tehsil Kumher Distirct Bharatpur.
3. Pawan S/o Shri Mahabir, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Nagla
Jeewana, Tehsil Kumher Distirct Bharatpur.
-Respondents-Plaintiffs
4. Govind Singh S/o Shri Rambabu, R/o Tuhiya Tehsil And
District Bharatpur.
----Respondent-Defendant
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Moolchandani
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
01/04/2022
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the sale
deed in question dated 16.07.2021, has been assailed in the
revenue suit filed by respondent No.1 i.e. Manju, before the
Assistant Collector, Kumher, Bharatpur by respondents on
30.07.2021. Thereafter, respondents No.1 to 3 have also filed
civil suit before the District Judge, Bharatpur on 11.08.2021,
seeking declaration of this sale deed as null and void.
Counsel for petitioner submits that respondents No.1 to
3 are claiming their ancestral and vested right in the suit
(2 of 3) [CR-151/2021]
lands by virtue of amendment under Section 6 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956. Their case before the civil court is that
suit lands were entered in the revenue record in name of
their father as Karta Khandan, who have unauthorizedly sold
their shares also, through sale deed dated 16.07.2021,
therefore, the sale deed in question be declared as null and
void qua vested coparcenary rights of respondents No.1 to 3/
plaintiffs.
Apart from this it also appears that one more revenue
suit in relation to the same suit land is also pending since
2014. Prima facie, it appears that if respondents No.1 to
3/plaintiffs are claiming their coparcenary right, alleging the
suit lands as the ancestral and properties of Hindu Undivided
Family, for claiming such rights they can approach the civil
court and cannot avail the two parallel remedies before the
civil court as well as before the revenue court.
In this view of matter issue notice to respondents.
Notices be given dasti.
Since, the instant revision petition arises against the
order dated 11.11.2021 passed by Additional District Judge
No.1, Bharatpur in Civil Suit No.111/2021 whereby the
learned trial court declined to stay the proceedings of civil
suit in view of pendency of revenue suit.
In the given facts, the judgment referred by counsel for
petitioner Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor)
through Natural Guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar
Pilania and Ors. [(2019) 3 SCC 692] is not applicable.
(3 of 3) [CR-151/2021]
Prima facie, this court finds that proceedings before civil
court are sustainable, therefore, there is no case for grant of
exparte stay on further proceedings of civil suit.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SACHIN/16
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
