Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 117 (RAJ)

Kamlesh D/o Shri Ranjeet Singh v. Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Ramswaroop

2017-01-10

SANGEET LODHA

body2017
ORDER : Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.10.16 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 21.1.14 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Sri Ganganagar, affirming the order dated 21.6.13 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Sri Ganganagar, rejecting an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Act"), stands dismissed. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner filed a suit under Section 88, 91, 188 & 92A of the Act against the first respondent, her father, in respect of the agriculture land 0.682 hectare comprising murabba No. 1 kila No. 16, 17, 23 to 25, khata No. 26/26 in chak 4E Chhoti. It was alleged that vide document dated 18.8.11, out of 2.14 bighas land, 1/7th share was given by the first respondent to the petitioner, for her maintenance. The petitioner also filed an application under Section 212 of the Act seeking temporary injunction. 3. The application seeking temporary injunction was dismissed by the revenue court observing that the father of the petitioner is alive and during his lifetime, the petitioner cannot claim any right in the property in question. The court observed that the matter with regard to the petitioner's share, if any, shall be decided after framing the issues and recording the evidence but in any case, no injunction can be issued against the recorded khatedar. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the RAA vide order dated 21.1.04 and the revision petition preferred stands rejected by the Board of Revenue by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while reiterating the stand taken before the revenue courts contended that during the pendency of the suit so as to protect the interest of the petitioner, the status quo in respect of the disputed land deserves to be maintained. Learned counsel submitted that the courts below have seriously erred in observing that the document to be relied upon by the plaintiff, does not create any right in her favour and the same is not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings arrived at by the revenue courts are ex facie perverse. Learned counsel submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings arrived at by the revenue courts are ex facie perverse. However, it is not disputed by the learned counsel that the land in question is self acquired property of the first respondent and he is recorded khatedar thereof. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. It is settled law that in the matter of the temporary injunction, the jurisdiction of the appellate court is not coextensive with that of the trial court. The appellate or revisional court can interfere with an order of the trial court granting or refusing injunction only when it is satisfied that the trial court has acted contrary to law or has acted arbitrarily, or that the finding of trial court regarding the three requirements of grant of injunction are perverse or capricious. 8. Indisputably, the land in question is self acquired property of first respondent and he is the recorded khatedar thereof. A bare perusal of the unregistered document sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff reveals that it is prima facie inadmissible in evidence. Be that as it may, solely on the basis of the said document, the plaintiff cannot claim any right in the self acquired property of the first respondent during his lifetime. 9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel and gone through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that after due consideration of the material on record in its entirety and objectivity, a categorical finding arrived at by the courts below that the petitioner/plaintiff has no prima-facie case in her favour, cannot be faulted with. The concurrent finding arrived at by the three revenue courts, remains a finding of fact, which cannot be said to be capricious or perverse. 10. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned passed by the Board of Revenue, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.