Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 424 (RAJ)

Kesari Devi v. Ranveer Singh

2017-02-06

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2017
JUDGMENT Mohammad Rafiq, J. - This writ petition seeks to challenge order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (for short ''the Board of Revenue'') whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and order dated 11.07.2016 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Laxmangarh, Sikar (for short ''the SDO'') has been affirmed. 2. The SDO by the aforesaid order rejected application filed by the petitioner Kesari Devi under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleadment in the revenue suit filed by Respondents No. 1 and 2. The aforesaid revenue suit was filed by Respondents No. 1 and 2 for declaration, injunction and partition with respect to land bearing Khasra No. 841 admeasuring 7.43 hectares. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disputed land was originally entered in the khatedari of Jwala Prasad, who had two daughters namely Banarsi Devi and Kesari Devi(Petitioner) and one son namely Shankar Lal. Shankar Lal had two daughters namely Jhimku Bai and Nani Bai and one adopted son namely Sharwan. Jhimku Bai and Nani Bai got the mutation No. 1188 entered in their favour with regard to half share each. Their aunt Banarsi Devi filed a revenue suit before SDO, Fatehpur, which was decreed in her favour vide judgment dated 05.02.1999 whereby mutation No. 1188 was set aside and it was declared that Banarsi Devi and Kesari Devi were entitled to /rd share each and Jhimku Bai and Nani Bai and Sharwan were entitled to 1/9th share each. Even then, Jhimku Bai sold half share of the disputed land in favour of Respondents No. 1 and 2, who filed present revenue suit. In that revenue suit, the petitioner filed application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleadment as party respondent defendant. The petitioner has also separately filed civil suit for setting aside sale deed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that when the petitioner has already filed civil suit for setting aside aforesaid sale deed, there is no need for her impleadment in the revenue suit. Besides, his submission is that judgment and decree dated 05.02.1999 passed in the revenue suit field by Banarsi Devi was never executed and the same remained un-executed and on that basis, the petitioner is not entitled to be arrayed as party-defendant in the present revenue suit. 5. Besides, his submission is that judgment and decree dated 05.02.1999 passed in the revenue suit field by Banarsi Devi was never executed and the same remained un-executed and on that basis, the petitioner is not entitled to be arrayed as party-defendant in the present revenue suit. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, this Court finds that when the parties claim their right over disputed land to be descendants of late Jwala Prasad, which could not be denied, the petitioner would be effected by outcome of the present revenue suit, particularly when Respondents No. 1 and 2 have prayed for partition and partition has to be amongst co-sharers. The fact that the petitioner happens to be daughter of late Jwala Prasad is not disputed and father of Jhimku Bai and Nani Bai, through whom they are claiming land in dispute, was son of Jwala Prasad. Even if the petitioner has filed civil suit for setting aside sale deed on the ground that such sale deed was fraudulently executed by Nani Devi after the mutation had been set aside after filing their revenue suit, the fact remains that the petitioner would be effected by outcome of the present revenue suit and therefore, she is necessary and proper party. Regardless of the interpretation placed by the Board of Revenue on Section 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not necessary party. 6. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to impleaded as party-defendant in the revenue suit. 7. Stay application stands disposed off.