Mu. Radha Wife Of Devikinandan ... vs Suresh Chand ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6778 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:30071-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 29/2021

Mu. Radha Wife Of Devikinandan (Deceased), Through Her Legal Hairs-

1. Mahesh Chandra S/o Devkinandan Sharma, Aged About 75 Years, By Caste Brahman, Resident Of 68/2 Ashok Nagar Udaipur, Tehsil And District Udaipur.

2. Deenbandhu S/o Devkinandan Sharma, Aged About 70 Years, By Caste Brahman, Resident Of 68/2 Ashok Nagar Udaipur, Tehsil And District Udaipur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Suresh Chand S/o Madan Lal, By Caste Brahman, Resident Of Joshi Bhanwan, Jagdish Chowk, Surya Marg, Udaipur.

2. Pushpa W/o Siddhi Shanker Chowbay Brahman, Resident Of Teliwada, Udaipur.

3. Shyam Lal S/o Madan Lal Joshi, Resident Joshi Bhanwan, Jagdish Chowk, Surya Marg, Udaipur.

4. Shakuntla D/o Madan Lal Joshi, Wife Of Pramod Kumar Shastri, Resident Joshi Bhanwan, Jagdish Chowk, Surya Marg, Udaipur.

5. Smt. Manju D/o Madan Lal Joshi, Resident Joshi Bhanwan, Jagdish Chowk, Surya Marg, Udaipur.

6. Vena S/o Gokul Dangi (Deceased), Through His Legal Heirs-

6/1. Smt. Dhanna W/o Vena, Resident Of Rupe Sagar Kacchi Basti, Geda Magri, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur. 6/2. Kuka S/o Vena, Resident Of Rupe Sagar Kacchi Basti, Geda Magri, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur. 6/3. Devi Lal S/o Vena, Resident Of Rupe Sagar Kacchi Basti, Geda Magri, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur. 6/4. Noji D/o Vena W/o Sawji Dangi, Resident Of Rupe Sagar Kacchi Basti, Geda Magri, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur. 6/5. Dallu D/o Vena W/o Dhanna Ji, Resident Of Mesdakala, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.

6/6. Smt. Tulsi D/o Vena (Deceased), Through His Legal Heirs- 6/6/1. Smt. Lila D/o Tulsi, Resident Of Roopsagar, Near Kachhi Basti, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.

6/6/2. Smt Ganga D/o Tulsi, Resident Of Roopsagar, Near Kachhi Basti, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.

6/6/3. Heera Lal S/o Tulsi, Resident Of Roopsagar, Near Kachhi Basti, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.

7. Amra S/o Dhula Dangi (Deceased), Through His Legal Heirs

[2023:RJ-JD:30071-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-29/2021]

7/1. Megha S/o Amra Dangi, Resident Of Roopsagar, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.

7/2. Mana S/o Amra Dangi, Resident Of Roopsagar, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.

7/3. Mohan S/o Amra Dangi, Resident Of Roopsagar, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.

7/4. Jeetu S/o Amra Dangi, Resident Of Roopsagar, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.

7/5. Inder S/o Amra Dangi, Resident Of Roopsagar, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.

7/6. Smt. Durga D/o Amra Dangi, Resident Of Roopsagar, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.

8. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Girwa, District Udaipur.

9. Smt. Kamla W/o Ramswaroop Pancholi, Resident Of 68/2, Ashok Nagar, Udaipur.

10. Smt. Kalawati W/o B.m., Sharma, Resident Of 68/2, Ashok Nagar, Udaipur.

11. Smt. Mukul W/o Vijay Kumar, Resident Of 68/2, Ashok Nagar, Udaipur.

12. Smt. Kumud W/o Sudhakar, Resident Of 68/2, Ashok Nagar, Udaipur.

                                                                    ----Respondents



For Appellant(s)              :    Mr. Gaurav Shrimali
For Respondent(s)             :    ---

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

04/09/2023

1. In this appeal, challenge has been posed to the order dated

19.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the

writ petition, which has been preferred by the appellant wherein

challenge was made to the judgment dated 30.12.1995 passed by

the Assistant Collector (HQ), Udaipur which was upheld vide

judgment dated 03.11.1997 passed by the Revenue Appellate

[2023:RJ-JD:30071-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-29/2021]

Authority, Udaipur as also the judgment dated 12.06.2019 passed

by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer dismissing the second appeal, as

has been preferred by the petitioner.

2. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant filed a suit under

Section 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 on 28.08.1978

against her brother-Madan Lal and others on the plea that her

father died on 19.08.1956 and the land owned by him was

succeeded by her brother-Madanlal and the appellant, being the

daughter, in equal shares. The said land was in joint possession

and as her father died subsequent to coming into force of the

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she was entitled to claim the right in

the property by succession. It was asserted that the suit land has

been wrongly recorded in the revenue record to be in tenancy of

Madan Lal-brother of the appellant, whereas it should have been

reflected as in joint possession of the appellant as well. It was

claimed that since the death of her father, the land remained joint

till 05.03.1968 when Madan Lal, without the consent of the

appellant, transferred the land in favour of respondent no. 2 Shri

Vena and respondent no. 3 Amra, who took possession of the

land. The said transfer was illegal and therefore, possession was

not in accordance with law with both respondents no. 2 and 3 and

the appellant was entitled to seek possession.

3. Based on the pleadings in the suit which was preferred by

the appellant, the Assistant Collector after hearing the parties and

on consideration of the evidence led by the parties, came to the

conclusion that the land in question belongs to the father of the

appellant namely Ram Kumar. However, the date of death of Ram

Kumar was not established by the appellant, as was claimed to be

[2023:RJ-JD:30071-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-29/2021]

19.08.1956. The death certificate, as has been produced by the

appellant, was found to be suspicious on the ground that the same

was obtained after 15 years of the death of Ram Kumar.

4. Reliance has been placed by the appellant on the statement

of Girja Shankar who was produced to prove the death certificate

where he claimed that the date of death of Ram Kumar was

19.08.1956 which was indicated in his diary but the said evidence

was not accepted by the authorities on account of the fact that the

diary was not produced where such an entry has been made.

Further, no explanation has comeforth with regard to the issuance

of the death certificate, which was issued after a period of 16

years on 12.02.1971. The cause of action, as asserted to, has

arisen on 25.02.1976 when the appellant became aware of the

transfer of the land and its possession but the suit has been

preferred after a delay. However, the same has not been found to

be a ground for rejection of the suit but the death certificate

having not been proved, rather the same has been found to be

suspicious and having been prepared after a long delay of 16

years, disbelieved by the authorities. The reasons assigned for

non-acceptance of the certificate by the authorities below cannot

be said to be without any basis.

5. It would not be out of way to mention here that initially the

suit was dismissed by the Assistant Collector vide judgment dated

30.12.1995. In the first appeal, the Revenue Appellate Authority

and thereafter, the Board of Revenue came to a positive

conclusion after thoroughly re-examining the issues involved and

reiterated the findings recorded by the Assistant Collector. As is

apparent from the records that the revenue entries reflected

[2023:RJ-JD:30071-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-29/2021]

Madan Lal-the brother of the appellant as the sole successor of

deceased Ram Kumar who died prior to 1956 and the appellant

was never in possession of the suit property.

6. Learned Single Judge has again considered the matter in

detail and has come to the conclusion that the judgments passed

by the revenue authorities are in accordance with law based upon

the evidence and therefore, cannot be said to be illegal.

7. In any case, it may be added here that while exercising

powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the

jurisdiction of judicial review is limited and if two opinions can be

formed on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence, the one

which has been taken by the authorities below need not be

interfered with unless the same is found to be perverse or in

violation of the statutory provisions, which in the present case

does not exist.

8. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present appeal,

the same stands dismissed.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ 13-Jayesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)