Rajasthan High Court

Ganeshi Lal S/O Shri Mannalal Mali vs Radha Devi W/O Madanmohan Gupta on 27 February, 2024

Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

[2024:RJ-JP:9746]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                    S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 97/2015

         Ganeshi Lal S/o Shri Mannalal Mali, R/o - Mohalla,
         Mehandibagh, Tonk, (Died) Through Legal Hairs
1.       Rekha Kumari D/o Ganeshlal W/o Omprakash Chandel,
         R/o Kathunipol, Kota (Raj.)
2.       Kanta        Vardhunia         D/o      Ganeshlal           W/o   Brijmohan
         Vardhunia, R/o Kathunipol, Kota (Raj.)
3.       Jyoti Uniyara D/o Ganeshlal W/o Virendra Uniyara, R/o
         Kathunipol, Kota (Raj.)
4.       Chitra Singodia D/o Ganeshlal W/o Rajesh Singodia, R/o
         Mehandibagh, Tonk.
5.       Harish Kumar Solanki S/ Ganeshlal Mali., R/o Kathunipol,
         Kota (Raj.)
6.       Saraswati Devi W/o Late Shri Ganeshlal, R/o Kathunipol,
         Kota (Raj.)
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                        Versus
1.       Radha Devi W/o Madanmohan Gupta, R/o Mohalla Bada
         Kua, Cinema Road, Tonk.
2.       Prabhulal S/o Chotmal Mali, (Since Deceased), R/o
         Mohalla Mehandibagh,
3.       Rajesh S/o Prabhulal Mali, R/o Mohalla Mehandibagh,
         Tonk
4.       Kamlesh S/o Prabhulal Mali, R/o Mohalla Mehandibagh,
         Tonk
                                                                     ----Respondents
                                  Connected With
                    S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 83/2015
1.       Prabhu Lal S/o Chothmal Mali, R/o Mohalla Mehandibagh,
         District Tonk (Raj.)
2.       Rajesh S/o Prabhulal Mali, R/o Mohalla Mehendibagh,
         District Tonk Raj
3.       Kamlesh S/o Prabhulal Mali, R/o Mohalla Mehendibagh,
         District Tonk Raj
                                                                       ----Petitioners


                         (Downloaded on 04/03/2024 at 08:46:49 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JP:9746]                      (2 of 6)                          [CR-97/2015]


                                      Versus
1.       Radha Devi W/o Madan Mohan Gupta, R/o Mohalla Bada
         Kuwa, Cinema Road, Tonk (Raj.)
2.       Ganeshlal S/o Mannalal Mali, R/o Mohalla Mehendibagh,
         Tonk (Deceased) Through Lrs.
2/1.     Rekha Kumari D/o Ganeshlal W/o Omprakash Chandel,
         R/o Kathunipol, Kota (Raj.)
2/2.     Kanta      Vardhunia         D/o      Ganeshlal           W/o   Brijmohan
         Vardhunia, R/o Kathunipol, Kota (Raj.)
2/3.     Jyoti Uniyara D/o Ganeshlal W/o Virendra Uniyara, R/o
         Kathunipol, Kota (Raj.)
2/4.     Chitra Singodia D/o Ganeshlal W/o Rajesh Singodia, R/o
         Mehandibagh, Tonk. (Raj.)
2/5.     Harish Kumar Solanki S/ Ganeshlal Mali., R/o Kathunipol,
         Kota (Raj.)
3.       Saraswati Devi W/o Late Ganesh Lal (Deceased), R/o
         Kaithooni Pole, Kota (Raj.)
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. B. L. Agarwal, Adv.
                                  Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Mohd. Adil, Adv.



     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

                                   Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT                                                    27/02/2024


       Since these instant petitions have arisen out of the order

dated 13.02.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Tonk in Civil

Suit No.140/2000 (14/1996), whereby the suit for possession of

room filed by respondent No.1-Radha Devi under Section 6 of

Specific Relief Act was decreed, therefore, they are being decided

together by this common order.




                       (Downloaded on 04/03/2024 at 08:46:49 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JP:9746]                     (3 of 6)                            [CR-97/2015]


S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 97/2015:-Learned counsel for

the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 had filed a suit for

possession under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act relating to room

which was fully described in para No.1 of the plaint. Respondent

No.1-Radha Devi did not have any locus to file the suit according

to the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act because at

that time, suit property was not in her possession. As per her

case, Rajendra Prasad was in the possession of the suit property

on 09.07.1995. It is also not clear that Radha Devi was claiming

possession through Rajendra Prasad only. Rajendra Prasad alone

could file the suit for possession. Learned counsel for the

petitioners also submits that Rajendra Prasad had lodged an FIR

but after     investigation, final        report was              submitted   by the

Investigating Officer. Rajendra Prasad had not appeared in the

witness box, so, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn

by the trial court.


      Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that as per

statement of Madan Mohan, he had orally gifted the disputed

property to Radha Devi but as per the Transfer of Property Act, if

value of the gift property is more than Rs.100/-, it should be

registered. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that

the trial court passed the order on the weakness of the

defendants. It is a settled proposition of law that no decree can be

passed on the weaknesses of the defendants. Plaintiff had to stand

on its own legs.




                      (Downloaded on 04/03/2024 at 08:46:49 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JP:9746]                   (4 of 6)                    [CR-97/2015]


      Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that Radha

Devi failed to adduce cogent evidence that she had possession of

the disputed property on or before 09.07.1995. Learned counsel

for the petitioners also submits that Radha Devi had to adduce the

evidence regarding possession of the disputed property and trial

court also enquired the matter regarding possession of Radha Devi

but no enquiry was made regarding title by the trial court. So,

order of the trial court be set aside.


S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 83/2015:-Learned counsel for

the petitioner has also adopted the arguments advanced by

learned counsel for the petitioners in S.B. Civil Revision Petition

No.97/2015 and further submits that the trial court had not

provided the opportunity to cross-examine Madan Mohan, who is

husband of Radha Devi. Learned counsel for the petitioners also

submits that respondents had not adduced any evidence regarding

property came in the possession of respondent No.1. She had not

filed any document to show her possession. Learned counsel for

the petitioners also submits that no title document was filed by

Radha Devi. Radha Devi in her statement admitted that disputed

property was in the name of Bhanwar Lal. Learned counsel for the

petitioners also submits that respondent No.1 had filed a suit

against the petitioners for eviction and arrears of rent for which

civil regular first appeal is pending. So, order of the trial court be

set aside.

      Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon

the following judgments : (1) Sudhakar Vs. Nanaji & Ors.

reported in 2018 (1) Civil Court Cases 220 (Bombay); (2)
                    (Downloaded on 04/03/2024 at 08:46:49 PM)
 [2024:RJ-JP:9746]                   (5 of 6)                            [CR-97/2015]


Daulat Singh & Anr. Vs. Tulsiram & Anr. reported in AIR

1990 Madhya Pradesh 348; (3) P. Kishore Kumar Vs. Vittal

K. Patkar reported in 2023 (4) DNJ (SC) 1319 and (4) Maria

Margarida Sequeria Fernandes & ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack de

Sequeria (Dead) through LRs reported in 2012 (2) Supreme

602.

       Learned counsel     for     the    respondent            has   opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and

submits that suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is

summary in nature. No detailed enquiry is necessary and enquiry

regarding title is not permissible. Learned counsel for the

respondent also submits that petitioners had remedy to file a suit

for declaration. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits

that Radha Devi by way of evidence clearly proved that she was in

possession of the disputed room till 09.07.1995. So, the trial court

rightly decreed the suit filed by the respondent-Radha Devi. So,

revision petitions be dismissed.

       Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon

the following judgments : (1) Sanjay Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs.

Gulbahar Sheikh & Ors. reported in 2004 (3) Supreme 205;

(2) Sadashiv Shyama Sawant (d) through LRs & Ors. Vs.

Anita Anant Sawant reported in 2010 (1) Supreme 698 and

(3) Padartha Amat & anr. Vs. Siba Sahu reported in AIR 1993

Orissa 92.

       I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the

respondent.

[2024:RJ-JP:9746] (6 of 6) [CR-97/2015]

Trial court while decreeing the suit filed by the respondent

No.1 clearly mentioned that respondent No.1 by way of cogent

evidence proved that she was in possession of the disputed

premises till 09.07.1995. Enquiry regarding title of the disputed

premises is not permissible in the present suit. So, in my

considered opinion, the trial court had not committed any error in

decreeing the suit filed by respondent No.1. So, present revision

petitions being devoid of merit, are liable to be dismissed, which

stand dismissed accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J