Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Kanti Bai D/O Shri Moti W/O Shri ... vs Bajrang Lal S/O Shankar Lal ... on 10 October, 2024
[2024:RJ-JP:42817]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16462/2023
Smt. Kanti Bai D/o Shri Moti W/o Shri Khana Ji, Aged About 52
Years, Resident Of Village Jharkhoda, Tehsil Nainva, District
Bundi (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Bajrang Lal S/o Shankar Lal, R/o Chavandpura, Tehsil
Nainva, District Bundi (Raj.)
2. Ramdhan S/o Shankar, R/o Chavandpura, Tehsil Nainva,
District Bundi (Raj.)
3. Mangi Bai W/o Nathu Lal, R/o Dhunva (Bandhapara),
Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk (Raj.)
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar, Nainva District
Bundi (Raj.)
5. Bank Of Baroda, Branch Karwar, Tehsil Nainva, Through
Branch Manager, District Bundi (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Buddhi Prakash Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
Order
10/10/2024
1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of judgment and
orders of Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short 'Board'), Revenue
Appellate Authority and Sub Divisional Officer (SDO).
2. The brief facts are that respondent No.2 and 3 (arrayed in
this petition hereinafter referred to as respondents) filed a suit
under Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act of 1955')
for declaration and permanent injunction. It was pleaded that in
the property described in the suit half share belongs to plaintiff
[2024:RJ-JP:42817] (2 of 3) [CW-16462/2023]
and half share belongs to Moti son of Jagannath as per the
revenue record. Moti died on 21.10.2001 and there was no other
other successor except the plaintiffs. Mangi Bai wife of the Moti
had solemnized Nata marriage about forty years ago and never
came back during the lifetime of Moti. The petitioner (defendant
No.2 in the suit) was born after ten years of Nata marriage and
had no share in the property of Moti. Petitioner filed a written
statement admitting the claim and produced compromise.
Thereafter, petitioner chose not to appear in the witness box. The
suit was decreed on 19.11.2008. The appeal preferred before the
appellate authority was dismissed on 31.08.2012. The second
appeal was dismissed by the Board on 17.05.2023, hence the
present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
had not filed the written statement and the compromise produced
along with the written statement was a forged document.
4. The suit filed by the respondent was decreed as the
pleadings in the suit were admitted by the petitioner. It was
proved that defendant No.1-Mangi Bai (wife of Moti) went into a
Nata marriage and the petitioner was a child out of the Nata
marriage. The compromise produced was to the effect that the
share of the property of Motilal be given to the respondent.
5. The Board has recorded a finding that there is no ground
taken that the written statement filed was a result of fraud or of
undue influence. There is no pleading in the writ petition that the
written statement was forged or was filed under coercion or undue
influence. The contention that the petitioner had not filed the
written statement remains a bald statement.
[2024:RJ-JP:42817] (3 of 3) [CW-16462/2023]
6. No case is made out for interference in the findings recorded
by the both the appellate authorities.
7. The petition is dismissed.
(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J
Chandan/14
Reportable: Yes
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
