Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1986 (RAJ)

Bhagu Ram v. Board of Revenue

2014-12-04

ARUN BHANSALI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders dated 28.2.2011 and 23.4.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby the revision filed by the respondent No.2 Roopa Ram has been accepted and the review petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected respectively. 2. The respondent No.3 Smt. Dallu filed a suit for partition, declaration of khatedari, correction of record and permanent injunction against the respondents No.4 to 20 and the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit Roopa Ram claiming himself to be adopted son of Smt. Dallu and her husband Gumana Ram filed an application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment as party-plaintiff in the suit. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Deedwana by his order dated 19.4.2004 rejected the application filed by Roopa Ram on noticing that as the evidence of plaintiff is already over and if Roopa Ram wanted any relief being adopted son of Gumana Ram, he can seek such relief from his mother and the application was highly belated. 4. Aggrieved against that, Roopa Ram filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue wherein by order dated 28.2.2011 the Board came to the conclusion that the applicant Roopa Ram had interest in the property of Gumana Ram and he should have been impleaded as party. However, while passing the order, the trial court directed to implead Roopa Ram as party, take his written statement, frame fresh issues and in case, any issue is raised regarding adoption deed, the same be sent to the Court of competent jurisdiction. 5. The review petition filed by the petitioner regarding the order dated 28.2.2011 was rejected by the Board of Revenue. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Board was not justified in allowing the revision petition, inasmuch as, Roopa Ram had no right to get impleaded as party and it cannot be said that he was a necessary / proper party to the suit. The impleadment has been made after passing of three years from the date of filing of the suit and at the stage, when the evidence of the plaintiff was already over. 7. The impleadment has been made after passing of three years from the date of filing of the suit and at the stage, when the evidence of the plaintiff was already over. 7. It was further submitted that in any case, the direction given by the Board of Revenue amounts to restarting the whole lis all over again and the same changes the nature / cause of action of the entire case, which is impermissible. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3 duly supported the order passed by the Board of Revenue. 9. It was submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 ('the Act') the registered adoption deed is a sufficient prima-faice proof regarding adoption and therefore, the petitioner in a suit for partition was indeed a necessary party. 10. It was further submitted that though the application was filed for being impleaded as plaintiff, the Board of Revenue while allowing the revision petition has directed the impleadment as defendant, which appears to be a mistake. It was further submitted that the applicant only wants to get impleaded as a plaintiff and does not want the trial of the suit to begin all over again and want to join at the stage where the suit has already progressed and therefore, the petitioner herein should otherwise also have no objection. 11. I have considered the rival submissions. 12. Admittedly, the suit filed by Smt. Dallu pertains to seeking partition of a property, which belonged to father of her husband Gumana Ram and in view of the adoption, which is not disputed by Smt. Dallu, it cannot be said that the applicant Roopa Ram had no interest in the suit and therefore, the applicant being a necessary party, the order of impleadment passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be faulted. However, the consequential direction issued by the Board of Revenue appears to be beyond the prayer made by the applicant Roopa Ram and goes much beyond the requirements of impleadment of a plaintiff. 13. However, the consequential direction issued by the Board of Revenue appears to be beyond the prayer made by the applicant Roopa Ram and goes much beyond the requirements of impleadment of a plaintiff. 13. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed, while impleadment of respondent No.2 Roopa Ram as a plaintiff in Suit No.114/2003 pending before the S.D.O., Deedwana is upheld, the consequential directions regarding filing of written statement by Roopa Ram, framing of fresh issues and sending the proceedings for determination of validity of the adoption deed of the Court of competent jurisdiction are set-aside. 14. As submitted by learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3, it is made clear that the suit shall proceed from the stage where it stood when the application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC was filed by Roopa Ram. As the suit pertains to the year 2001, it is expected that the S.D.O. shall proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible.Petition partly allowed. *******