Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1725 (RAJ)

Devi Singh v. Hanwant Singh

2014-10-28

SANGEET LODHA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is directed against order dated 12.12.13 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sumerpur, whereby an appeal preferred by the first respondent against the order dated 3.8.13 passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Sumerpur, granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff has been allowed and the injunction granted, stands set aside. 2. The petitioner-plaintiff preferred a suit for cancellation of relinquishment deed and permanent injunction against the respondent no.1 & 2 claiming that the respondent who is brother of the petitioner got the relinquishment deed signed while giving impression that the same is a partition deed executed in respect of the ancestral property. It is averred that when the respondent attempted to sell the disputed land, the factum of fraud committed came to the petitioner's notice. 3. The petitioner also filed an application seeking injunction in terms that during pendency of the suit, the respondent may not transfer or alienate the disputed property and the petitioner's possession over the land in question may not be interfered with. 4. The application was contested by the respondent by filing a reply thereto, taking the stand that after the death of the father of the petitioner and the respondent, with the consent of the family members, the petitioner was inducted in Government service on compassionate ground as dependent of his deceased father and at the same time, the ancestral properties were also partitioned. It was averred that instead of executing the partition deed, it was considered appropriate to get the relinquishment deeds executed. According to the respondent, in terms of the partition, the = share in the land comprising khasra no.857 and 858 fell in the share of the petitioner-plaintiff and the land comprising khasra no.1055 fell in the share of the respondent. It was further averred that after the partition and execution of the relinquishment deed, the land in question is in exclusive possession of the respondent and the same has been developed by him by installing a tubewell. 5. After due consideration, the trial court vide order dated 3.8.13 granted injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff in terms that the status quo shall be maintained in respect of the disputed property and the property shall not be alienated to anybody else, till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate court which stands allowed by the order impugned. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate court which stands allowed by the order impugned. Hence,this petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the appellate court has failed to consider the material on record objectively and the findings arrived at are ex facie capricious and perverse. Learned counsel submitted that if the status quo in respect of the disputed property is not maintained, the purpose of the suit filed by the petitioner shall stand frustrated. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has preferred the suit for cancellation of relinquishment deed and therefore, till the dispute raised is adjudicated by the court below, the defendants cannot be permitted to transfer the property in any manner and therefore, the appellate court has seriously erred in interfering with the order passed by the court below granting injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. 7. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent while supporting the order impugned passed by the appellate court, submitted that the relinquishment deeds executed between the parties stand duly registered with the concerned authority and the stand sought to be taken by the petitioner, who is a Government employee, in terms that his signatures on the relinquishment deed were obtained by committing fraud, has rightly been disbelieved by the appellate court. Learned counsel submitted that after the relinquishment deeds being executed as aforesaid, the petitioner is in exclusive possession of the land comprising khasra no.857 and 858 and the respondent is in exclusive possession of the land comprising khasra no.1055 and therefore, the stand sought to be taken by the petitioner is absolutely false. Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned passed by the court below does not suffer from any error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. It is to be noticed that the land comprising khasra no.1055, 857 and 858, was joint khatedari land of Bachhan Singh and his brother Guman Singh, who were having equal share therein. After the death of Bachhan Singh, the petitioner and the respondent no.1 & 2 became entitled for being recorded as khatedar of = share in the lands in question. After the death of Bachhan Singh, the petitioner and the respondent no.1 & 2 became entitled for being recorded as khatedar of = share in the lands in question. As per the relinquishment deeds, the respondents relinquished their share in the land comprising khasra no.857 and 858 in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner relinquished his share in the land comprising khasra no.1055 in favour of the first respondent. It is not in dispute that on the basis of the relinquishment deeds, the land comprising khasra no.857 and 858 has been entered in the revenue record in the name of the petitioner and the land comprising khasra no.1055 has been recorded in the name of the first respondent. It is also not disputed before the court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner herein is holding exclusive possession of the land comprising khasra no. 857 and 858 and cultivating the same. It is to be noticed that the relinquishment deeds executed between the parties have been duly registered and there is nothing on record suggesting that the signatures of the petitioner on relinquishment deed were obtained by the first respondent by committing fraud. It is also a matter of record that after the death of his father in terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties, the petitioner has been appointed as teacher on compassionate ground. That apart, as per the revenue record as on the date, the petitioner is recorded khatedar of the land comprising khasra no.857 and 858 and the first respondent is khatedar of the land comprising khasra no.1055. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has filed any suit before the revenue court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of his khatedari right in the land in question. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this court, the finding arrived at by the appellate court regarding absence of prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******