Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3787 Raj
Judgement Date : 6 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:538-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 144/2020
1. Bhani Ram S/o Shri Sajanram, aged about 46 Years,
resident of Dablibass Pema, Tehsil and District
Hanumangarh.
2. Ram Pratap S/o Shri Sajanram, aged about 43 Years,
resident of Dablibass Pema, Tehsil and District
Hanumangarh.
----Appellants
Versus
1. The Board of Revenue, Ajmer through its Registrar.
2. Babu Lal S/o Shri Bhanwari Lal, resident of Surya Nagar,
Rawatsar Road, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil and District-
Hanumangarh.
3. Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Banwari Lal, resident of Ward
No.- 17, Near Kila, Rawatsar Road, Hanumangarh Town,
Tehsil and District Hanumangarh.
4. Indra Kumar S/o Shri Banwari Lal, resident of Ward No.-
17, Near Kila, Rawatsar Road, Hanumangarh Town, Tehsil
and District Hanumangarh.
5. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh.
6. The Assistant Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Hanumangarh.
7. Banwari Lal S/o Shri Sajanram, resident of Dablibass
Pema, Tehsil and District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.R. Saharan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.S. Pidiyar for
Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG
Mr. Sushil Bishnoi with
Mr. Rahul Mandan
Mr. Lokesh Mathur
(Downloaded on 07/01/2025 at 09:33:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:538-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-144/2020]
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order
06/01/2025
1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants are the persons who entered into an agreement to sale
with Shri Indra Kumar for an undivided agricultural land ad
measuring 25 bighas comprising chak no.14JRK. He further
submits that he sought relief in the revenue suit on the ground
that the compromise was entered between the brothers and such
decree was obtained with an intention of defeating rights of the
present appellants.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there are
three consecutive judgments of the judicial and quasi-judicial
authorities including the Hon'ble Single Bench judgment dated
02.07.2019 of this Court whereby the appellants right of specific
performance for agreement has been saved keeping it open for
him to execute the same without entering into the inter se dispute
between the co-sharer.
3. This Court is of the firm opinion that the judgment impugned
are in accordance with law particularly when the appellants
himself has stated before the Hon'ble Single Bench that a suit for
specific performance preferred by him has been decreed in his
favour and he was only looking to enforce the decree in
accordance with law.
4. Thus, the dispute intermeddling the brothers need not be
gone into at this stage, no cause of interference is made out.
[2025:RJ-JD:538-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-144/2020]
5. Accordingly, the instant Spl. Appeal (Writ) is dismissed. The
impugned order dated 02.07.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Single
Bench of this Court is upheld.
6. However, it is made clear that any observation hampering
the right of the appellants to get his decree of specific
performance that he already has in his favour as sustained in law
shall not be affected by the present order.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
45-Dharmendra Rakhecha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!