Rajasthan High Court
Leela Dhar Agarwal, Advocate S/O Late ... vs Yatish Agarwal S/O Late Sh. Daulatram Ji ... on 12 March, 2024
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2024:RJ-JP:12155]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 24/2017
1. Lila Dhar Agarwal, son of Late Sh. Daulatram Ji Agarwal,
resident of 295, Masjid Gali, Kota Junction
---Defendant-Petitioner
Versus
1. Yatish Agarwal son of Late Sh. Daulatram Ji Agarwal,
resident of Agarwal House 16, Krishna Mill Colony,
Ramganj Mandi, District Kota, Rajasthan
2. Sunil Agarwal S/o Late Sh. Daulatram Ji Agarwal, R/o
Agarwal House 16, Krishna Mill Colony, Ramganj Mandi,
District- Kota, Rajasthan. Presently Residing At E-201,
Indraprasth 7, Opp. Fire Station, 7 Budh Ke Dev
Ahemdabad, Gujarat.
3. Late Smt. Gheesi Bai W/o Late Sh. Daulatram Ji Agarwal,
R/o B-204, Green Pearl Ekar, Shri Gopal Nagar, Gopalpura
Baipass Road, Jaipur. Presently Residing At Agarwal House
16, Krishna Colony, Ramganj Mandi, Kota (Expired During
Pendency Of Civil Revision).
4. Murlidhar Agarwal S/o Late Sh. Daulatram Ji Agarwal, R/o
Flat No. C-410, Om Enclave Anantpura, Jhalawar Road,
Kota, Rajasthan.
5. Smt. Prem Lata Bansal W/o Dr. M.c. Bansal D/o Late Sh.
Late Sh. Daulatram Ji Agarwal, R/o K-202, Green Parl
Akad Shri Gopal Nagar, Gopalpura Baipass Road, Jaipur.
6. Bansidhar Agarwal S/o Late Sh. Daulatram Ji Agarwal, At
Present Resident Of V-204, Green Parl Akad Shri Gopal
Nagar, Gopalpura Baipass Road, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 34/2017
Murlidhar Agarwal S/o Late Shri Daulatram Ji Agarwal, Flat No.
C-410, Om Enclave, Anantpura, Jhalawar Road, Kota Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Yatish Agarwal S/o Late Shri Daulatram Ji Agarwal,
Agarwal House 16, Krishna Mill Colony, Ramganj Mandi,
[2024:RJ-JP:12155] (2 of 6) [CR-24/2017]
Distt. Kota Raj.
2. Sunil Agarwal S/o Late Shri Daulatram Ji Agarwal,
Agarwal House 16, Krishna Mill Colony, Ramganj Mandi,
Distt. Kota Raj. Presently Residing At E-201 Indraprasth 7
Opp. Fire Station 7 Budh Ke Dev Ahemdabad Gujrat
3. Smt. Gheesi Bai W/o Late Shri Daulatram Ji Agarwal, B-
204, Green Pearl Ekar, Shri Gopal Nagar, Gopalpura
Bypass Road, Jaipur Raj. Presently Residing At Agarwal
House 16 Krishna Colony Ramganj Mandi Kota (Died
During Pendency Of The Revision)
4. Leeladhar Agarwal Advocate S/o Late Shri Daulatram Ji
Agarwal, 295, Masjid Gali, Kota Junction Presently
Residing At 1-K-30 Vigyan Nagar Kota Rajasthan
5. Smt. Prem Lata Bansal W/o Dr. M.c. Bansal, D/o Late Shri
Daulatram Ji Agrawal, R/o K-202, Green Parl Akad, Shri
Gopal Nagar, Gopalpura Baipass Road, Jaipur
6. Bansidhar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Daulatramji Agrawal, At
Present R/o V-204, Green Parl Akad, Shri Gopal Nagar,
Gopalpura Baipass Road, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. S. Hora, Adv.
Mr. Satish Chandra Mittal, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R K Daga, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date Of Judgment 13/03/2024
Since, both revision petitions have arisen out of the same
order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the Additional District and
Sessions Judge No. 4, Kota in Civil Suit No. 3/2012, hence, they
are being decided together.
Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants (for short 'the
defendants') submits that plaintiffs-non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2
[2024:RJ-JP:12155] (3 of 6) [CR-24/2017]
(for short 'the plaintiffs') had filed a suit for partition in which they
stated that the property mentioned in para 2 and 3 of the plaint is
of the joint Hindu family property and said property was not
divided.
Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the
defendants had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in
which it was clearly stated that said property was not joint Hindu
family property. In relation to the, property which came in the
share of the Daulatram Ji, he had executed a gift deed in favour of
his wife on 21.12.1957. The plaintiffs had deliberately concealed
these facts.
Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that by
way of family settlement, Gheesi Bai and Daulatram Ji partitioned
the property on 31.03.1975 and 30.03.1976. Industrial Plot No. F-
241, Road No. 5 Indraprasth Industrial Area, Kota was in the
name of Smt. Veena Agarwal and said plot was purchased by her
in an auction. So, it is her personal property. As per the Benami
Transaction Act, suit cannot be instituted regarding said
properties.
Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the
plaintiffs had filed the suit after the lapse of 54 years without
challenging the gift deed and after 36 years of family settlement
dated 31.03.1975 and 30.03.1976. So, the present suit is time
barred.
Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that RIICO
had executed lease deed in favour of respondent No. 3-Murlidhar
in relation to Plot No. C-158, RIICO Limited because he had
deposited the development charges and other amounts from time
[2024:RJ-JP:12155] (4 of 6) [CR-24/2017]
to time for the said plot. So, he is owner of the said property. But
the plaintiffs had cleverly suppressed these facts, so suit filed by
the plaintiffs be dismissed and the order dated 20.12.2016 passed
by the trial court be set aside.
Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon
the following judgments:-(1) S. Laxmi Kumari versus L. V.
Bhopal @ Siddheshwaran and ors. reported in 2015 AIR CC
3087, (2) Dorswamy vs. Sivasankaran and ors. reported in
2014(2) KHC 420, (3) Rameshwar Mistry and Anr. vs.
Bebulal Mistry reported in 1990 (1) BLJR 587, (4) Saroj
Salkan Vs. Suma Singh and Ors. reported in
MANU/DE/1074/2016 (5) Sh. Surender Kumar Vs. Sh.
Dhanu Ram and ors. reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Del 333,
(6) Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh and Ors. reported in (1986) 3
SCC 567, (7) Yudhister Vs. Ashok Kumar reported in (1987)
1 SCC 204, (8) Bhanwar Singh Vs. Puran and Ors. reported
in (2008) 3 SCC 87, (9) Additional Commissioner of
Income Tax Vs. M. Karthikeyan reported in 1994 Supp (2)
SCC 112 (10) Hardeo Rai Vs. Sakuntala Devi & Ors.
reported in (2008) 7 SCC 46 (11) Bhup Singh & Ors. Vs. Raj
Singh @ Rajinder Singh and Anr. reported in 2018(4) R.C.R.
(Civil) 241. (12) M. Arumugam Vs. Ammaniammal & Ors.
reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 15. (13) Radha Bai Vs. Ram
Narayan and Ors. reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1499.
(14) Kiran Devi Vs. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board and Ors.
reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 280. (15) Ravi Vs. Sajjan
Kumar & Ors. reported in 2019 SCC Online Del 10605. (16)
T. Arivandandam Vs. T. V. Satyapal and Anr. reported in
[2024:RJ-JP:12155] (5 of 6) [CR-24/2017]
(1977) 4 SCC 467. (17) K. Akbar Ali Vs. K. Umar Khan &
Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 238. (18) Bharvagi Construction
and Ors. V/s Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Ors. reported
in MANU/SC/1119/2017.(19) Vijay Singh and Anr. Vs.
Buddha & Ors. reported in 2012(3) WLC (Raj.) 673. (20)
Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational
Charitable Society represented by its Chairman Vs.
Ponniamman Educational Trust Represented by its
chairperson/Managing Trustee reported in (2012) 8 SCC
706. (21) Abdul Wasi Vs. Abdul Kadir repoted in
MANU/RH/1017/2014. (22) Anant Pal Singh Vs. Sumer
Singh & Anr. in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No.38/2010
decided on 22.12.2016. (23) Key Pee Buildtech Private
Limited Vs. Shahjahan Begum MANU/RH/0432/2015. (24)
Maharaj Shri Manvendrasinjhi Ranjitsinghji Jadeja Vs.
Rajmata Vijaykunverba reported in MANU/GJ/0786/1998.
(25) Laxmi Housing Udyog Private Limited Vs. Sharad
Subramanyam and Ors. reported in MANU/WB/1261/2015.
(26) Sopan Sudhdeo Sable & Ors. Vs. Assistant Charity and
Ors. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Ors. reported in
(2004) 3 SCC 137. (27) Madan Lal Vaid Vs. Nand Kumar
Walia and Ors. reported in MANU/DE/1282/2001. (28)
Holy Health and Education Society Vs. Delhi Development
Authority reported in MANU/DE/0413/1999. (29) Asha
Khanna and Ors. Vs. Pankaj Khanna and Ors. reported in
MANU/DE/0243/2015. (30) Mahaveer Sadhna Sansthan
Vs. Smt. Shashi Mathur reported in 2017 (2) RLW 924
[2024:RJ-JP:12155] (6 of 6) [CR-24/2017]
(Raj.) and (31) Rajendra Bajoria & Ors. Vs. Hemant Kumar
Jalan and Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 764.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted
that the trial court vide order dated 20.12.2016 has rightly
dismissed the applications filed by the defendants under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC because the question as to whether the disputed
properties are joint Hindu family properties or not, would be
decided after taking the evidence of the parties. So, the trial court
has not committed any error in dismissing the applications filed by
the defendants. So, the present revision petitions being devoid of
merits, are liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned
counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiffs.
The question as to whether the properties for which the
plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition have been partitioned or not
and the said properties are joint Hindu family properties or not,
would be decided after taking the evidence of the parties. So, in
my considered opinion, the trial court has not committed any error
in dismissing the applications filed by the defendants under Order
7 Rule 11 CPC. So, the present civil revision petitions being devoid
of merits, are liable to be dismissed, which stand dismissed
accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any also stand(s), dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/Tahir/2-3
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
