Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2514 (RAJ)

Rambaksh v. Bhanwar Lal

2008-11-14

G.K.TIWARI

body2008
Judgment TIWARI, M.—This is a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short `the Act') against the impugned order dated 11.4.05 of Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner by which he dismissed the appeal filed against the order dated 24.6.04 of temporary injunction passed by Sub-Divisional Officer Sujangarh. 2. The facts, in brief, are that during pendency of a revenue suit before Sub-Divisional Officer Sujangarh between the rival parties, the non-petitioners No. 1 to 3 plaintiffs filed an application under Section 212 of the Act for grant of temporary injunction in which Sub-Divisional Officer accepted the application vide his order dated 24.6.04 restraining the petitioner and Non-petitioner No. 2 from transferring the disputed land by any mode- sale, bequest, mortgage etc. The petitioner was also restrained from making any intervention in the peaceful possession of the non-petitioner. Aggrieved against this order an appeal was preferred before Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner who by his judgment dated 11.4.05 rejected the appeal and upheld the order of Sub-Divisional Officer. Aggrieved against the impugned order of Revenue Appellate Authority dated 11.4.05 this revision petition is filed. 3. I have heard both the learned counsels. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner Rambaksh is the recorded khatedar of the disputed land but he has been unnecessarily restrained from making sale, gift, bequest and mortgage of the disputed land. Earlier through mutation No. 46 dated 6.6.1961 the land was recorded in the name of non-petitioner No. 1 alone thereafter on 3.10.1980 a decree was passed which now has bee illegally challenged in the suit. The petitioner has acquired right in the disputed land through a formal decree of the court and unless that decree is set aside no adverse order can be passed against the petitioner. It was also pleaded that non-petitioner Kesar is the daughter of the petitioner and grand-daughter of Ramchandra. Since the impugned orders are passed against the khatedar of the disputed land they should be set aside. 5. Countering the arguments of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners contended that the petitioner Rambaksh is son of Ramchandra and he never became adopted son of Purna Ram as is being claimed by the petitioner. Even in the draft of the revision petition Rambaksh is shown as son of Ramchandra and not of Purna Ram. 5. Countering the arguments of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners contended that the petitioner Rambaksh is son of Ramchandra and he never became adopted son of Purna Ram as is being claimed by the petitioner. Even in the draft of the revision petition Rambaksh is shown as son of Ramchandra and not of Purna Ram. Rambaksh cannot claim any right in the land of Purna Ram. The claims pertaining to right and title would be decided in the main suit. Citing 1997 RRD 98, 1980 RRD 160, it was argued that the suit can be filed when earlier decree is null and void. It is also stated that when there is concurrent findings of lower courts no interference is to be made in the revision. The revision is filed against a dead person. As such it is no maintainable as per 1989 AIR (Raj.) 43 and 1983 RRD 291. There are other successors of Pema Ram who have not been impleaded. As such revision is not maintainable. 6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and perused the impugned orders of lower courts and gone through the record available on the file. 7. There is an apparent dispute between the rival parties pertaining to illegal adoption and pedigree leading to divergent claims of right and title in the disputed land. This contentious issue cannot be settled in the application under consideration; this will be decided in the main suit after framing of necessary issues and leading evidence. 8. Perusal of the order dated 24.6.04 of Sub-Divisional Officer Sujangarh shows that opposite party is restrained from alienating the disputed land by way of sale, gift, bequest, mortgage or through any other mode of transfer along with non-interference in the possession of the disputed land. This order is based upon making out a prima facie case after discussing and analysing all the facts and evidence prima facie adduced before the court. Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner has also concurred in the findings of the court of Sub-Divisional Officer in his detailed judgment dated 11.4.05. Thus, there are concurrent finding of the facts by both the lower courts. According to 1973 AIR (SC) 1976 when there are concurrent findings of both the lower courts, no interference is warranted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner has also concurred in the findings of the court of Sub-Divisional Officer in his detailed judgment dated 11.4.05. Thus, there are concurrent finding of the facts by both the lower courts. According to 1973 AIR (SC) 1976 when there are concurrent findings of both the lower courts, no interference is warranted in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Legally speaking also the impugned orders of both the lower courts are in keeping with the principle of its pendents which cannot be faulted with. 9. In light of above discussion, I do not find any illegality, jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order dated 11.4.05 of Revenue Appellate Authority Bikaner. As such the revision is without any force. 10. Resultantly the revision is dismissed. Pronounced.