[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Radheyshyam vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6604) on 5 February, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:6604]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civ. Contempt Pet. No. 5/2023
Radheyshyam S/o Mohanlal Tiwari, Aged About 60 Years,
Resident Of Thukrai, Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh, At
Present 14, Sri Vihar, Tarni Mahadeo Road, Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Bengu, District
Chittorgarh.
2. Smt. Santosh W/o Prakash Chandra Jain, Sarpanch Gram
Panchayat Thukrai, Panchayat Samiti, Bengu, District
Chittorgarh.
3. Shri Ramdhan Gurjar, Sub-Registrar And Tehsildar Bengu,
District Chittorgarh.
4. Shri Kishore Singh Sindhi, Land Records Inspector,
Bengu, District Chittorgarh.
5. Banshilal S/o Pyarchand Brahmin, No. 4-6 Is R/o Dorai
Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.
6. Bhagwan Lal S/o Pyarchand Brahmin, No. 4-6 Is R/o
Dorai Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.
7. Shambhu Lal S/o Pyarchand Brahmin, No. 4-6 Is R/o
Dorai Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.
8. Damodar S/o Geetalal Brahmin, Resident Of Dorai, Tehsil
Bengu, District Chittorgarh.
9. Madhubala D/o Geetalal, W/o Suganlal Brahmin, Resident
Of Dhanora, Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.
10. Saroj D/o Geetalal, W/o Durgesh Brahmin, Resident Of
Rampuria, Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.
11. Azad S/o Geetalal, W/o Bahadul Sharma, Resident Of
Dhanora, Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.
12. Preeti D/o Geetalal, W/o Suresh, Resident Of Pachunda,
Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.
13. Bhagwati Devi W/o Geetalal Brahmin, Resident Of Dorai,
Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.
14. Modiram S/o Ghisalal Dhakad, Resident Of Thukrai, Tehsil
Bengu, District Chittorgarh.
(Uploaded on 15/02/2026 at 01:17:57 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/02/2026 at 09:07:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6604] (2 of 4) [CCP-5/2023]
15. Manju Bai W/o Prakash Dhakad, Resident Of
Chandakhedi, Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.
16. Ambalal S/o Devala Dhakad, Resident Of Sri Nagar, Tehsil
Bengu, District Chittorgarh.
17. Santra Bai W/o Mukesh Dhakad, Resident Of
Chandakhedi, Tehsil Bengu, District Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saruparia with
Mr. Nikhil Ajmera
Mr. Vijay Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : None present
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
05/02/2026
1. Despite service, none is present for the respondents.
2. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging
disobedience of orders dated 10.05.2017, 21.08.2017 and
02.02.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.148/2017.
3. Vide interim order dated 10.05.2017, the Court proceeded
on to stay the operation and execution of judgment and decree
dated 16.03.2017 passed by Additional District Judge No.3,
Chittorgarh in Civil Appeal No. 58/2016. Vide order dated
21.08.2017, the appeal was admitted and on the said date,
interim order dated 10.05.2017 was directed to be continued.
Ultimately, vide order dated 02.02.2018, interim order dated
10.05.2017 was confirmed till the disposal of the appeal.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the
aforementioned interim order being in operation, respondent Nos.
(Uploaded on 15/02/2026 at 01:17:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6604] (3 of 4) [CCP-5/2023]
5 to 7 proceeded on to get the mutation entries entered in their
favour and further, to sell out the property in question.
5. Counsel submits that while deciding Issue No.4, the learned
Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 04.03.2003,
specifically held that the petitioner was in possession of the
property in question in the capacity of an adopted son. Although
the said finding was reversed by the Appellate Court but then,
judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court stood stayed
vide interim order dated 10.05.2017.
6. Meaning thereby, the finding on Issue No.4 remains intact
and in terms of the said finding, the respondents could not have
transferred the property in question. Hence, the same is in clear
disobedience of the orders of the Court.
7. Heard the Counsel. Perused the record.
8. Vide judgment and decree dated 04.03.2003, the learned
Trial Court rejected the suit as filed by the respondents plaintiffs
for cancellation of adoption deed in favour of the petitioner
defendants. The learned First Appellate Court reversed the said
findings/decree. That is to say, the First Appellate Court cancelled
the adoption deed. The said judgment and decree passed by the
First Appellate Court stood stayed vide abovementioned interim
order. Meaning thereby, present status is that the petitioner
remains declared to be the adopted son of late Shri Mohan Lal.
9. But then, a bare perusal of notice dated 26.06.2022
(Annex.9) as served on the respondents reflects that the
properties in question have been sold out by the respondents on
the strength of some Will executed by late Shri Mohan Lal in their
(Uploaded on 15/02/2026 at 01:17:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6604] (4 of 4) [CCP-5/2023]
favour. No finding qua the said Will has been recorded in the
judgments impugned.
10. In that view of the matter, if the property has been sold out
by virtue of some Will, in the opinion of this Court, the same
cannot be treated to be a disobedience of the interim order of this
Court.
11. Further, it is an admitted fact that the alleged Will as well as
the mutation entries have already been challenged by the
petitioner.
12. Furthermore, vide the judgments impugned, no order
restraining the defendants from transferring or alienating any part
of the property has been passed. There being no interim order so
as to restrain the defendants/respondents from
transferring/alienating the properties in question, it cannot be held
that any disobedience of the interim order has been made by the
respondents.
13. No case for contempt is made out. The contempt petition is
hence, dismissed.
14. Rule stands discharged.
15. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
55-manila/-
(Uploaded on 15/02/2026 at 01:17:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
