Rajmata Padmini Devi W/O Late Sh. ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 4930 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:22692]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2109/2023

1.       Rajmata Padmini Devi W/o Late Sh. Maharaja Sawai
         Bhawani Singhji, Aged About 79 Years, R/o The City
         Palace, Jaipur Through Power Of Attorney Holder Thakur
         Narayan Singh Ji S/o Late Sh. Mansingh Ji, R/o Siras
         House, Gangapole, Jaipur (Raj.).
2.       Diya Kumari D/o Late Sh. Maharaja Sawai Bhawani
         Singhji, Aged About 51 Years, R/o The City Palace, Jaipur
         Through Power Of Attorney Holder Thakur Narayan Singh
         Ji S/o Late Sh. Mansingh Ji, R/o Siras House, Gangapole,
         Jaipur (Raj.).
3.       Sawai Padamnabh Singh S/o Late Sh. Maharaja Sawai
         Bhawani Singh Ji, Aged About 24 Years, R/o The City
         Palace, Jaipur Through Power Of Attorney Holder Thakur
         Narayan Singh Ji S/o Late Sh. Mansingh Ji, R/o Siras
         House, Gangapole, Jaipur (Raj.).
                                                                   ----Appellants
                                    Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Govt.
         Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur.
2.       Principal Secretary, General Administration Department
         Govt. Of Rajj. Govt. Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road,
         Jaipur.
3.       Amer Development And Management Authority, Through
         Its Executive Officer, Old Vidhansabha Building (Town
         Hall), Jaipur (Raj.).
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. L. L. Gupta, Adv. & Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Mehta, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Mukesh Joshi, Adv., Mr. Mudit Singhvi, Adv.

Mr. Vineet Mehta, Adv.

Ms. Priya Khushalani, Adv. & Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, AAG with Mr. Devanshu Sharma, Adv.

 [2023:RJ-JP:22692]                   (2 of 10)                     [CMA-2109/2023]


     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

                                  Judgment

Date Of Judgment                                                  15/09/2023

The instant appeal has been filed filed by the plaintiffs-

applicants-appellants (for short 'the applicants') against the order

dated 20.07.2023 passed by the Additional District & Judge No.9,

Jaipur Metro-II, Jaipur in Civil Miscellaneous Application

No.10/2023 (CIS No.131/2023) titled as "Rajmata Padmini Devi &

Ors. Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.", whereby the temporary

injunction application filed by the applicants under Order 39 Rule 1

and 2 CPC has been dismissed.

Learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that the

trial court has wrongly dismissed the temporary injunction

application filed by the applicants. Learned senior counsel for the

applicants further submits that as per the Covenant, the building

known as "Town Hall (Old Vidhan Sabha)" was a part of City Place.

It was shown as private property of His Highness, Jaipur and

preserved for future successors of Maharaja, Jaipur. Learned

senior counsel for the applicants also submits that the non-

applicants were licensee in the property because owner-ship of the

property-in-question vested in Maharaja, Jaipur. Learned senior

counsel for the applicants also submits that at present, Vidhan

Sabha is not functioning in the disputed property because the

Vidhan Sabha has been transferred/shifted in new building. The

non-applicants want to alienate the property-in-question. So,

status quo order be passed regarding the property-in-question.

Learned senior counsel for the applicants also submits that

the non-applicants are licensee in the disputed property and their

[2023:RJ-JP:22692] (3 of 10) [CMA-2109/2023]

license has already been terminated. Learned senior counsel for

the applicants further submits that the purpose for which the

disputed properties was given to the applicants has been

extinguished because of transferring/shifting the Vidhan Sabha in

new building.

Learned senior counsel for the applicants further submits

that the trial court while deciding the temporary injunction

application considered the prima facie case and also gave the

finding that whether the non-applicants are licensee or not and

the purpose for which the property was given has been

extinguished or not, are triable issues which would be decided in

the suit. So, the trial court had to pass the status-quo order

regarding the property-in-question.

Learned senior counsel for the applicants further submits

that the property-in-question was used as Vidhan Sabha but once

Vidhan Sabha was transferred/shifted in new constructed building,

then license granted to use the said property automatically came

to an end. Learned senior counsel for the applicants also submits

that as per the Covenant, it is crystal clear that these properties

are private properties of His Highness. Various correspondences

took place between the representatives of His Highness and

officials of the non-applicants, in which officials also sought

explanation regarding title of the properties. So, it cannot be said

that the non-applicants had absolute right in these properties.

Learned senior counsel for the applicants also submits that as per

the Covenant, no title was transferred to the State and no tenancy

right was created.

[2023:RJ-JP:22692] (4 of 10) [CMA-2109/2023]

Learned senior counsel for the applicants also submits that

the non-applicants had filed the objections regarding non-

maintainability of the suit. The said application was also dismissed

by the trial court and matter is subjudice before this Court.

Learned senior counsel for the applicants further submits that in

D. B. Civil Writ Petition No.7133/2004 titled as Satish

Kumar Parik Vs. State Of Rajasthan, this court held that

property-in-question/building are of the applicants. So, the order

of the trial court be set and aside and non-applicants be directed

not to create third party right interest and/or to alienate the

disputed property and maintain status-quo regarding the

property-in-question.

Learned senior counsel for the applicants further submits

that the non-applicants wanted to construct Museum there and

they have wasted crore of rupees and they are changing the

heritage look of the building. Learned senior counsel for the

applicants also submits that as per the Covenant, structure of said

property can not be changed and museum can not be constructed

in this building. So, the order of the trial court be set-aside and

the non-applicants be restrained to alienate the disputed property

and not to construct the museum in it.

Learned senior counsel for the applicants has placed reliance

upon the following judgments:- (1) M/s. Lakhara and Co. Vs

M/s. Shivakaran bhanwar lal kila reported in air 1995

rajasthan 17; (2) vidya devi Vs state of himachal pradesh

and others reported in (2020) 2 supreme court cases 569;

(3) kesar bai vs genda lal and another reported in (2022)

10 supreme court cases 217; (4) baini prasad (d) thro'

[2023:RJ-JP:22692] (5 of 10) [CMA-2109/2023]

LR's. Vs durga devi reported in 2023(1) DNJ (sc) 78; (5)

Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and others vs Erasmo

Jack De Sequeira (dead) through Lrs.reported in (2012) 5

supreme court cases 370; (6) Behram Tejani and Others vs

Azeem Jagani reported in (2017) 2 supreme court cases

759; (7) Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & anr. Vs

Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & ANR. Reported in 2012(1)

WLC (SC) Civil 160; (8) Joseph Severance & Ors. Vs Benny

Mathew & Ors. Reported in 2005(6) Supreme 516; (9)

Panchugopal Barua and others Vs Umesh Chandra Goswami

and others reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1041; (10)

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Chembur service

station reported in 2276/2011-Decided on 2.3.2011 (11)

Sant Lal Jain Vs Avtar Singh reported in 1985 Supreme

Court 857; (12) M. P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh Vs State

of M.P. reported in AIR 1985 Supreme Court 860; (13)

Jagdish Vs Shri Girdhari Lal Sharma & ors. Reported in

2022 (5) WLC 90 (Raj.) (14) Municipal Council, Bhilwara

Thro' Its Commissioner & Anr. Vs Sarika Chaplot & Ors.

Reported in 2022(4) DNJ (Raj.) 1441; (15) Sirajuddin @

Vajir Miyan Vs Abdul Gaffar & Ors. Reported in 2015(1)

WLC (Raj.) 448; (16) Bhagwati Singh Vs Raja Laxman

Singh reported in 2014 WLC (Raj.) UC 246; (17) Rajeshwer

Shankar Choudhary @ Rajesh Choudhary & Anr. Vs Shiv

Shankar Choudhary & Ors. Reported in 2013 WLC (Raj.) UC

556; (18) Niranjan Singh & Anr. Vs Rajesh Kumar reported

in WLC (Raj.) UC 426; (19) Representative Aam Janta,

Village Berdo ka Bas & Anr. Vs Gramin Vikas Vigyan Samiti,

[2023:RJ-JP:22692] (6 of 10) [CMA-2109/2023]

Jelu Gagadi & Ors. Reported in 2006(1) DNJ (Raj.) 421;

(20) Jai Singh Vs Kuldeep sharma & Anr. Reported in

2013(4) DNJ (Raj.) 1501; (21) Maharwal Khewaji Trust

(Regd.) faridkot Vs Baldev Dass reported in AIR 2005

Supreme Court 104; (22) Vinod Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs

Narendra Kumar & Ors. Reported in S.B. Miscellaneous

Appeal No. 6413/2016 decided on 03/07/2017; (23)

Ramsharan Gupta S/o Shri Suraj Narain Khandelwal

(Gupta) Vs Krishan Kumar Agarwal @ Kishan Kumar

Agarwal reported in 2022 (7) WLC 407 (Raj.); (24) Peer

Gulam Naseer Vs Peer Gulam Jelanee S.B. Civil Revision

Petition No. 657 of 1986, decided on 28.10.1988; (25)

Satish Kumar Pareek Vs The state of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B.

Civil Writ Petition No. 7133/2004 (PIL) decided on 5 th May,

2008.

Learned senior counsel for the non-applicants has opposed

the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the

applicants and submitted that the suit filed by the applicants is not

maintainable because as per the Covenant, the civil court had no

jurisdiction to try the dispute regarding Covenant. Learned senior

counsel for the non-applicants further submits that no such

condition was mentioned in the Covenant that right to use these

properties shall be extinguished after transferring/shifting the

office.

Learned senior counsel for the non-applicants further

submits that the non-applicants are not the licensee in the

disputed properties. As per the Covenant, properties were given

to the non-applicants for official use and official use should be

[2023:RJ-JP:22692] (7 of 10) [CMA-2109/2023]

considered in wider sense and not in narrow sense. Learned senior

counsel for the non-applicants further submits that they would

neither alienate the property to third party nor would create any

third party interest in the property-in-question. Office is running in

the property-in-question and they can furnish an undertaking that

if the applicants succeed in the suit, they will handover the

property to the applicants without any hindrance.

Learned senior counsel for the non-applicants further

submits that the correspondences took place between the

representatives of the applicants and officials of the non-

applicants create no right regarding the property-in-question.

Learned senior counsel for the non-applicants further

submits that the non-applicants are using the disputed property

for more than 75 years and they are maintaining it. The applicants

have no right to restrain the non-applicants in using the property-

in-question for official purposes.

Learned senior counsel for the non-applicants also submits

that the trial court rightly exercised the discretion while rejecting

the temporary injunction application. So, the Appellate Court had

no power to adjudicate the matter afresh.

Learned senior counsel for the non-applicants also submits

that specific purpose for which the property-in-question was given

on license has not been mentioned in the Covenant. So, the

applicants had no prima facie case.

Learned senior counsel for the non-applicants further

submits that the applicants had claimed the rent of

Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One Crore) per month. So, no irreparable loss is

caused to the applicants. So, the trial court has rightly dismissed

[2023:RJ-JP:22692] (8 of 10) [CMA-2109/2023]

the temporary injunction application filed by the applicants.

Learned counsel for the non-applicants also submits that State

Government had notified this property as Musium. The applicants

have not challenged the said notification. So, the present suit is

also not maintainable. So, the present appeal being devoid of

merits, is liable to be dismissed.

Learned senior counsel for the non-applicants has placed

reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Ramesh Vajabhai

Rabari vs Pratiksha Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. in Special

Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22430-32/2013 decided on

03.04.2014; (2) State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ushadevi in

Civil Appeal Nos. 557-558 of 2012 decided on 15.07.2015;

(3) Karan Singh vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. in

Civil Appeal Nos. 5943-5945 of 1997 decided on

13.04.2004; (4) Tej Singhji vs Union of India (UOI) and

Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1965 decided on 06.10.1978;

(5) Rajmata Krishna Kumari vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

reported in MANU/RH/0574/2006; (6) The State of

Rajasthan and Ors. vs Sawai Tejshinghji Maharaja of Alwar

reported in Civil Misc. Petn. Nos. 67 and 68 of 1965 decided

on 29.04.1968; (7) Draupadi Devi and Ors. vs Union of

India (UOI) and Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 3861 and 3862 of

2001 decided on 09.09.2004; (8) Kishorsinh Ratan sinh

Jadeja vs Maruti Corp. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 2186-2187

of 2009 decided on 6 April, 2009; (9) Mandali Ranganna &

Ors. Etc vs T. Ramachandra & Ors in Civil Appeal no. 3128-

3129 of 2008 decided on 30 April, 2008; (10) Ram Sarup

Gupta (Dead) by Lrs. Vs Bishun Narain Inter College and

[2023:RJ-JP:22692] (9 of 10) [CMA-2109/2023]

ors. in Civil Appeal No. 638 of 1980 decided on 08.04.1987;

(11) Surendra Kumar Baid vs Rajendra Kumar Baid in S. B.

Civil Misc. Appeal No. 153 of 2000 decided on 12.09.2001;

(12) N. G. Projects Limited vs Vinod Kumar Jain and Ors. in

Civil Appeal No. 1846 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.

2103 of 2022) decided on 21.03.2022; (13) National High

Speed Rail Corporation Limited vs Montecarlo Limited and

Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2021 decided on

31.01.2022; (14) N. R. Dongre and Ors. vs Whirlpool Corpn.

and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 10703 of 1996 decided on

30.08.1996; (15) Vimla Devi vs Jang Bahadur in Civil

Revision Appln. No. 196 of 1976 decided on 20.04.1977

(16) Wander Ltd. & Anr. vs Antox P. Ltd., reported in 1990

Supp (1) SCC 727; (17) Skyline Education Institute Pvt.

Ltd. Vs SL Vaswani & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 142; (18) N.R.

Dongre & Ors. vs. Whirlpool Corporation & Ors. in Civil

Appeal No. 10703 of 1996 decided on 30.08.1996; (19)

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Vs Hindustan Lever Ltd.,

reported in (1997)7 SCC 1; (20) Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead)

by Lrs. vs. Respondent: Bishun Narain Inter College and

Ors, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 555.; (21) Draupadi Devi and

ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in

Manu/SC/0728/2004 and (22) Surendra Kumar Baid vs

Rajendra Kumar Baid decided on 12 September, 2001.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned senior

counsel for the applicants as well as learned senior counsel for the

non-applicants.

[2023:RJ-JP:22692] (10 of 10) [CMA-2109/2023]

It is an admitted position that as per the Covenant, the

property-in-question was given to the non-applicants for

government official purposes. At that time, Office of

Archaeological Department and Amer Development & Management

Authority were functioning there. A bare perusal of the Covenant,

does not reveal that the said property was given on a license and

non-applicants were licensee. No specific purpose was assigned in

the Covenant and no time limit was mentioned in the Covenant

regarding giving the possession after shifting of these offices. As

per contention of the learned senior counsel for the non-

applicants, they are running the government Offices and they

would not alienate/or create third party right interest in the

property-in-question. The trial court in its order clearly mentioned

that official use should be considered in the wider terms and not in

the narrow sense. The trial court in its order rightly observed that

whether the said property was given on a license or not and

whether the purpose of giving the said property has been

extinguished or not, are triable issues which would be decided in

the trial after evidence. The trial court rightly exercised the

discretion in dismissing the temporary injunction application filed

by the applicants. So, order of the trial court does not said to be

perverse or in contradiction of Law. So, the present appeal being

devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed

accordingly.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/265

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)