Rajasthan High Court
Smt Padmavati And Ors vs Ram Babu And Ors on 20 December, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 296/1999
1.Smt. Padmawati (since deceased through her Legal
Representative):
1/1.Krishna Kumar Dubey son of Late Sh. Ram Dayal Sharma
2.Smt. Pushpavati w/o Radhey Lal D/o Lala Ram
3.Prithviraj S/o Lala Ram (Since Deceased through his Legal
Representatives):
3/1.Smt. Long Shri urf Pratap Kaur W/o
3/2.Gauri D/o
3/3.Ruby D/o
3/4.Chandra Shekhra S/o
Prithviraj Sharma, All resident of Near Jain Mandir, Purohit
Mohalla, Bharatpur.
4.Smt. Kelo Devi alias Rajendra Kaur Wd/o
5.Santosh Kumar alias Navneet Sharma S/o
6.Yogendra Kumar S/o
7.Madhubala D/o
Premlochan all resident of Purohit Mohalla, Bharatpur.
8.Archana D/o Premlochan, R/o Hundi Wala Bazar, Tundla District
Firojabad, U.P.
9.Poonam D/o Premlochan, Resident of Purohit Mohalla,
Bharatpur.
----Defendant-Appellants
Versus
1.Rambabu son of Lalaram, resident of Purohit Mohalla,
Bharatpur.
----Plaintiff-Respondent
2.Smt. Suraj Kaur wd/o Lalaram, resident of Purohit Mohalla,
Bharatpur.
3.Smt. Vimla Devi D/o Lalaram W/o Ramprakash Sharma,
resident of Nooni Darwaja, Radha Govind Ji Bada, Agra (U.P.)
4.Smt. Beena D/o Lalaram W/o Kalicharan, resident of Gordhan
at present, Principal, Saraswati Shimbhu Mandir, Kirawali,
District Agra.
5.Prakash Chandra S/o Lalaram, resident of Purohit Mohalla,
Bharatpur.
(2 of 4) [CFA-296/1999]
6.Kalpana D/o Premlochan
7.Rachna D/o Premlochan
R/o Purohit Mohalla, Bharatpur.
8.Rashmi D/o Premlochan, r/o Purohit Mohalla, Bharatpur.
(Died).
-----Defendant-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.P. Goyal, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Deeksha Mittal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini with
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar
Mr. J.K. Moolchandani for the
applicant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
20/12/2022
The matter comes up on an application (3/2021) filed by Mr.
Brij Mohan Bhardwaj seeking his impleament as party-respondent
stating therein that the subject property is government property
being property of a mandir in which parties to the litigation have
no right. It is stated that he is a worshipper in the mandir and
hence, may be impleaded as respondent No.9 in the appeal.
Learned counsel for the applicant, inviting attention of this
Court towards the letter dated 04.09.2004 issued by the Executive
Engineer PWD, Bharatpur, would submit that the subject property
No.50/53 belongs to a Mandir and as entered in the name of
Ramlochan as Muafi Mandir. He, therefore, prays that the
application for impleadment be allowed.
Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, inviting
attention of this Court towards the report of the Tehsildar dated
06.03.1982 and judgment dated 25.06.1991 passed by the Board
of Revene Rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal No.19/84 preferred by one
Shr. Bal Govind, would submit that it has been held therein that
(3 of 4) [CFA-296/1999]
the subject property was purchased by forefather of the parties in
a public auction conducted on 27.03.1903 and was not
government property. He submits that the present appeal arises
out of a suit for a partition instituted way back in the year 1987
and the applicant cannot be impleaded as party as he is neither
necessary nor proper party. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of
the application.
Heard. Considered.
The present first appeal arises out of the judgment and
decree dated 30.08.1999 passed by the learned trial Court in a
civil suit filed by the respondent No.1 for partition. The applicant
seeks impleadment claiming himself as to be worshipper of the
Mandir to whom the property is said to be belonging. However, in
view of the judgment dated 25.06.1991 passed by the Board of
Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal No.19/84 wherein, while
affirming the judgments of the District Collector dated 20.12.1983
and first appeal order dated 17.02.1984 passed by the learned
Appellate Authority, Bharatpur, it was held that the subject
property was not the government property and was purchased by
forefather of the parties in a public auction dated 27.03.1903, this
Court is not satisfied that the application is entitled for
impleadment as respondent as he does not appear to be either
necessary or proper party. Even otherwise also, the application
filed by the applicant is bereft of any reason as to why the
applicant did not seek impleadment during pendency of the suit
which was filed way back in the year 1987 and it has been filed
which inordinate delay in first appeal also which was preferred in
the year, 1999.
(4 of 4) [CFA-296/1999]
In view thereof, the application is dismissed.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/41
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
