Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1060 (RAJ)

Babulal v. Board of Revenue

2011-05-17

AJAY RASTOGI

body2011
Hon'ble RASTOGI, J.—The petitioner-defendants have approached to this Court assailing the order passed by Board of Revenue dt. 27.12.2010 whereby the application filed by the petition-defendants u/Ord. 7 R. 11 CPC was finally rejected and decision of Revenue Appellate Authority dt. 8.6.2010 was upheld by the Board of Revenue, as a consequence where of the suit filed by the original plaintiff, respondent herein, has to be examined by the learned Revenue Court and parties at this stage are at liberty to file their written statements and raise all their objections available under law. 2. Respondent-plaintiff 2 daughter of the deceased who was original Khatedar and land holder filed a suit for correction of entries and permanent injunction u/Ss. 88, 83 & 188 r/w Sec. 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act wherein it was specifically pleaded by her that she is the only daughter of the deceased khatedar and she has no brother or sister and no adoption was ever made by her parents. After the notice of the suit was served upon the present, petitioners who are claiming themselves to be the purchasers of the land in question, filed application u/Ord. 7 R. 11 CPC on the premise that the question which is to be determined in the present suit is in regard to adoption of Ram Sahai from whom, as alleged, suit property was purchased by them through a registered sale deed and this could not be within the domain of the revenue Court to examine as to whether there was a valid adoption or not and accordingly prayed that suit itself may be dismissed since being filed before the Court which has no jurisdiction to examine the issue raised. 3. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer, at one stage accepted the plea raised by the petitioner-defendants but the revenue appellate authority allowed the appeal preferred by plaintiff No. 2 vide order dt. 8.6.2010 against which the appeal preferred by the present petitioners before the Board of Revenue was rejected vide order dt. 27.12.2010, as a consequence whereof the suit has now to be examined by the learned revenue Court on the pleadings which came up for consideration after the written submissions being filed by the respective parties. 4. 8.6.2010 against which the appeal preferred by the present petitioners before the Board of Revenue was rejected vide order dt. 27.12.2010, as a consequence whereof the suit has now to be examined by the learned revenue Court on the pleadings which came up for consideration after the written submissions being filed by the respective parties. 4. Counsel submits that the very root cause of the suit is based on the fact as to whether there was a valid adoption of the respondent 3 from whom the land in question was purchased by the present petitioners and this could not be looked into and examined by the revenue Court, as such the suit itself is neither maintainable nor within the domain of the revenue Court to examine the issue raised of adoption and this is an apparent error which the revenue authority and so also the Board of Revenue committed in examining the issue raised of adoption, as such requires interference by this Court. In support of the contentions, counsel placed reliance upon the judgment in Ramchandra Dagdu Sonavane (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. vs. Vithu Hira Mahar (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. (AIR 2010 Supreme Court 818). 5. The submission made is wholly without substance for the reason that at the stage when the application u/Ord. 7 R. 11 CPC was filed by the petitioner-defendants, what has to be examined by the learned Trial Judge is as to whether the Court has jurisdiction to examine, based on facts mentioned in the plaint itself and no further supporting material was required to be looked into by the learned Trial Judge at the stage when the application u/Ord. 7 R. 11 CPC being examined. 6. What has been pleaded by the respondent-plaintiff 2 in the plaint is that she is the only daughter of the deceased land holder and she has no brother/sister and no-one was ever adopted by her parents and at this stage when the application u/Ord. 7 R. 11 CPC was filed the Court has to proceed on the averments made in the plaint. The present petitioners being the defendants before the revenue Court certainly have opportunity to raise all their objections available under law even in regard to what has been alleged regarding valid adoption but so far as present case is concerned, at the stage when the application u/Ord. The present petitioners being the defendants before the revenue Court certainly have opportunity to raise all their objections available under law even in regard to what has been alleged regarding valid adoption but so far as present case is concerned, at the stage when the application u/Ord. 7 R. 11 CPC came to be filed the learned revenue Court was supposed to examine the contents of the plaint as such and as already observed no additional material could be looked into and after the written statement is being filed and objections if raised as alleged it will be always open for the learned revenue Court to examine whether the issue being raised requires adjudication by the revenue Court or it is within domain of civil Court as referred to by the present petitioners but no opinion at this stage could be expressed by this Court. 7. The judgment upon which the counsel has placed reliance is of no assistance at this stage but after the question being raised regarding adoption of respondent-3 it will be for the revenue Court to examine in accordance with law. 8. This Court does not find any substance in the instant petition and no manifest error is being committed by the learned Court below which may call for interference. 9. Consequently, the petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.