Rajasthan High Court
Shimbhu Dayal S/O Shri Shankar Lal vs Sarbati Devi W/O Late Shri Durga ... on 17 October, 2023
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023:RJ-JP:29942]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 209/2019
1. Shimbhu Dayal S/o Shri Shankar Lal, R/o Mohlla
Manpura, Ward No. 08, Behror, District Alwar (Raj.).
2. Sushila Devi Widow Of Yudhister Daughter-In-Law Of
Shankar Lal,
3. Tekchand S/o Late Shri Yudhister, Grandson Of Shankar
Lal,
4. Vidhyadhar S/o Late Shri Yudhister, Grandson Of Shankar
Lal,
5. Nidhi D/o Late Shri Yudhister, Granddaughter Of Shankar
Lal,
6. Chanda D/o Late Shri Yudhister, Granddaughter Of
Shankar Lal,
All residents of Ward No.08, Mohalla Manpura, Behror,
Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
7. Vikas Yadav S/o Shri Rajaram Yadav, R/o D-54,
Ambabadi, Jaipur, District Jaipur (Raj.).
8. Mamta Yadav D/o Shri Rajaram Yadav, R/o D-54,
Ambabadi, Jaipur, District Jaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioners-Defendants
Versus
1. Sarbati Devi W/o Late Shri Durga Prasad, R/o Jainpurbas,
Tehsil Bharor, District Alwar (Raj.)
2. Anand S/o Late Shri Durga Prasad, R/o Jainpurbas, Tehsil
Bharor, District Alwar (Raj.).
3. Bajrang Sharma S/o Late Shri Durga Prasad, R/o
Jainpurbas, Tehsil Bharor, District Alwar (Raj.)
-------Respondents-Plaintiffs
4. Sub Registrar, Behror, Tehsil- Behror, District Alwar (Raj.).
5. Land Holder, Through Tehsildar Behror, District Alwar
(Raj.).
----Respondents-Defendents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav with
Mr. Ankit Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhrahma Prakash
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
17/10/2023
[2023:RJ-JP:29942] (2 of 4) [CR-209/2019]
This revision petition is directed against the order dated
25.07.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Behror (Alwar) (for
brevity "the learned trial Court") in Civil Suit No.80/2019 whereby,
an application filed by the petitioners/defendants No.1 to 8
(hereinafter referred to as "the defendants No.1 to 8") under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has been dismissed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the respondents No.1 to
3/plaintiffs (for short "the plaintiffs") filed a suit for declaration
and permanent injunction against the defendants No.1 to 8 and
the proforma respondents No.4 & 5 stating therein that the sham
sale deed dated 18.08.1982 executed by the defendants involving
the subject agricultural land in which they have rights and the
subsequent sale deeds dated 28.03.1998 and 30.07.1998
executed on the strength of the sham sale deed dated
18.08.1982, are null and void against their rights. Therein, the
defendants No.1 to 8 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC stating therein that the suit filed in the year 2019 seeking a
decree of declaration with regard to the sale deeds dated
18.08.1982, 28.03.1998 & 30.07.1998, was hit by the law of
limitation. The application has been dismissed by the learned trial
Court vide order dated 25.07.2019, impugned herein.
Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the
defendants No.1 to 8, referring to and relying upon para No.6 of
the plaint, would submit that the suit filed as late as in the year
2019 assailing the legality and validity of sale deed executed on
18.08.1982 and the subsequent sale deeds executed in the year
1998, was barred by the limitation. He, therefore, prays that the
civil revision petition be allowed, the order dated 25.07.2019 be
[2023:RJ-JP:29942] (3 of 4) [CR-209/2019]
quashed and set aside and the application filed by them under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC be allowed. He, in support of his
submissions, relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in case of Dahiben versus Arvindbhai Kalyanji
Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through legal representatives &
Ors.: (2020) 7 Supreme Court Case 366.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, opposing
the prayer, submitted that since, they had come to know of the
aforesaid sham sale deeds in the year 2018 and the suit filed in
the year 2019 was within limitation, the learned trial Court did not
err in dismissing the application filed by the defendants No.1 to 8.
Heard. Considered.
Although, the suit seeking decree of declaration of the sale
deeds dated 18.08.1982, 28.03.1998 & 13.07.1998 being null &
void against their rights, has been filed in the year 2019; but, it is
categorically stated therein that the plaintiffs had come to know of
the aforesaid sale deeds for the first time on 01.09.2018 when
they approached the concerned Patwari for obtaining loan on the
subject land. There is no averment in the plaint including its para
no.6 that prior thereto, the plaintiffs had any knowledge about
these sale deeds. Even the learned counsel for the defendants
No.1 to 8 could not satisfy this Court that reading of the
averments in the plaint in any manner reveal that prior to the year
2018 the plaintiffs had any knowledge of these sale deeds. It is
trite law that while considering an application under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC, only the averments in the plaint are to be taken into
consideration and the defense of the defendants is totally
irrelevant at this stage. Since, the learned counsel for the
[2023:RJ-JP:29942] (4 of 4) [CR-209/2019]
defendants No.1 to 8 could not satisfy this Court that the
averments made in the plaint reveal that the suit is hit by the law
of limitation, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned
trial Court did not err in dismissing the application filed by them
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
This Court is in respectful agreement with the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Dahiben
(supra); but, the same has no applicability in the present case
having been rendered in entirely different facts & circumstances.
Resultantly, this civil revision petition is dismissed.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/17
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
