Rajasthan High Court
Santokh Singh vs Smt Man Kaur And Others on 27 April, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 466/2015
Santokh Singh
----Appellant
Versus
Smt Man Kaur And Ors.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ishwar Jain
Mr. Rajesh Kapoor
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.P. Sharma
Mr. M.C. Gupta
Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
27/04/2022
1. The matter has come up on second stay application.
2. An interim stay was passed by this Court vide order dated
23.03.2022 to the effect that both parties shall maintain status
quo as to alienation, construction and possession of the suit
property, as it exists today. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 1/5, 1/6,
1/7 and respondent No.2 have filed an application (I.A.
No.2/2022) for vacation of stay order along with filing of reply to
the second stay application.
3. Heard learned counsel for both parties on second stay
application itself.
4. It transpires from the record that appellant-plaintiff is
claiming half share in the suit property (House No.111, Guru
Nanakpura, Raja Park, Jaipur).
5. Appellant-plaintiff filed the civil suit for partition on
13.03.2007 claiming the following relief:-
दावा वादी ववरुद्ध प्रव प्रतिवादीगन वगन डि डिक डिक्री फ़ररी फ़रमा फ़रमाया माया जाकर वाद पत्र का री फ़रमद
न १(एक) री फ़रमे ववर् प्रति री फ़रमकान का बाई री फ़रमीटीट्स ए एंगन डि ब बॉनगन डिीट्स वविभामाया जन
(2 of 4) [CFA-466/2015]
करवा फ़रमाया माया जाकर वादी का आधा िभाग का री फ़रमकाना प्रति का कब्ा वादी कक
वदला फ़रमाया माया जावा।
6. The trial court dismissed the appellant's suit vide judgment
dated 19.08.2015 with observation that appellant has failed to
show the ownership on the half portion of suit property, although
the trial court has not disbelieved on the possession of the
appellant. The claim of appellant was that the appellant and his
mother with his sister came as refugee from Pakistan and in the
registration card (Exhibit-1) prepared in the year 1952, the name
of plaintiff along with his sister's husband namely Sh. Khushal
Singh was jointly indicated with affixing photographs of both
parties. The appellant claimed that in fact this house was allotted
to refugees wherein half share belongs to appellant and half share
belongs to respondents, though the allotment was made in favour
of his sister's husband namely Sh. Khushal Singh as at that point
of time appellant was minor. Learned counsel for appellant
submits that appellant with his mother had possession over the
suit property.
7. During course of trial of his partition suit, an application for
temporary injunction filed by appellant, was dismissed vide order
dated 04.09.2008, which remained upheld in the appeal vide order
dated 19.03.2012. The first stay application, filed with the present
appeal, was dismissed by this Court while admitting the appeal
vide order dated 30.10.2015. Thereafter, this second stay
application has been filed by appellant alleging change in
circumstances that respondents are going to raise construction
after demolition of the suit property. Though respondents in their
reply have denied such contentions, however, in changed
circumstances, the second stay application is found maintainable.
(3 of 4) [CFA-466/2015]
8. Having considered facts and circumstances of the present
appeal, where the appellant is claiming half share in the suit
property and appellant is admittedly residing at New Delhi which
also reflects from the title page of civil suit as also of first appeal,
this Court deems it just and proper to protect the right of
appellant during course of this appeal in the manner that in case
he succeeds in first appeal, right of appellant to obtain half share
with possession in the suit property, may not be frustrated.
9. Accordingly, this Court modifies the interim stay order dated
23.03.2022 and directs that both parties shall maintain status quo
in relation to alienation of the suit property during course of this
first appeal and the respondents shall not transfer the possession
to any third party.
10. The second stay application as well as application (I.A.
No.2/2022) for vacation of stay order dated 23.03.2022 stands
disposed of.
11. Another application (I.A. No.1/2022) has been filed by
respondent Nos.1/5, 1/6, 1/7 and respondent No.2 alleging inter
alia that out of legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1,
taken on record vide order dated 23.03.2022, the right of
deceased respondent No.1 devolves upon respondent Nos.1/5,
1/6, 1/7 and respondent No.2 only by virtue of will dated
04.02.2009, hence, it has been prayed that order be
recalled/reviewed and the name of respondent Nos.1/1 to 1/4 as
legal representatives of respondent No.1 be deleted. Since,
respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/4 have not appeared before this Court,
hence this application cannot be allowed at this stage, however,
the factum of will made in favour of respondent Nos.1/5, 1/6, 1/7
and respondent No.2 is taken on record and appropriate effect of
(4 of 4) [CFA-466/2015]
the will would be considered at the time of deciding the first
appeal on merits.
12. Accordingly, application for recalling/reviewing of order dated
23.03.2022 stands disposed of.
13. Another application (I.A. No.3/2022) has been filed by the
applicants who are alleging themselves legal heirs of respondent
No.1/1 namely, Kulbir Kaur. It has been alleged that respondent
No.1/1 has passed away on 13.02.2020 leaving behind applicants
as his legal heirs. They may be allowed to implead as legal
representatives of deceased respondent No.1/1. The application
has been filed on 13.04.2022. Since due to pandemic Covid-19,
hon'ble the Supreme Court In Re: Cognizance for Extension of
Limitation [(2022) 3 SCC 117] has extended the period of
limitation upto February, 2022. Hence this application is treated
within limitation. The counsel for appellant does not oppose the
application.
14. For reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed.
15. Applicants-Jaspal Singh and Maheendra Pal Singh are allowed
to be substituted as respondent Nos.1/1/1 and 1/1/2 in place of
deceased respondent No.1/1.
16. Amended cause title, enclosed with the application, is taken
on record.
17. In the main appeal, notices be issued to respondent Nos.1/2,
1/3 and 1/4 and others are duly represented by their counsel.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SACHIN/75
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
