Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 161 (RAJ)

Deepak Kumar v. Shanta Bai

2018-01-12

DINESH MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. The present appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred challenging the order dated 16.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellate Court') in Civil Appeal No.60/2006, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff, against the judgment and decree dated 13.09.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), City North, Udaipur has been rejected. 2. Succinctly stated the facts are that the appellants-plaintiffs, being first wife and son of Late Amba Lal Khatik instituted a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants, being second wife and her children of the wedlock with Amba Lal Khatik. 3. The plaintiff No.2 Jamna Bai claimed herself be the legally wedded wife of said Amba Lal Khatik, and alleged that Shanta Bai was not a legally wedded wife and so were her children defendant No.2 to 5, hence after the death of said Amba Lal Khatik, who owned a residential house, and other movable property car, jeep and vehicle have vested in them. With these assertion the plaintiffs mandatory and permanent injunction praying that the defendants be restrained from alienating the above mentioned movable and immovable property owned by Amba Lal Khatik. 4. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, vide its judgment and decree dated 13.09.2006, inter alia, observing that the plaintiff had instituted the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction simplicitor without seeking a declaration with regard to their rights and title in such movable and immovable property. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 13.09.2006 passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellants preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Udaipur, which was registered as appeal No.60/2006 and visited the same fate. The appellate Court has also rejected the appellants' appeal inter alia maintaining that a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction, without there being a corresponding prayer for declaration of their title was maintainable. 6. The appellate Court has also rejected the appellants' appeal inter alia maintaining that a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction, without there being a corresponding prayer for declaration of their title was maintainable. 6. It would be out of place to reproduce the relevant observation made by the learned Appellate Court, which reads thus:- 10 & mi;qZDr foospu ls i=koyh ij ;g lkfcr gqvk gS fd Áfroknhx.k dk oknxzLr edku esa Lo0 vEckyky th ds thoudky ls gh fuokl djuk ,oa ml ij Áfroknhx.k dk gh vkf/kiR; gksuk lkfcr gS] bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa tc rd oknhx.k }kjk oknxzLr edku ds lEcU/k esa LokfeRo dh ?kks"k.kk ugha djok yh tkjh gS] rc rd ek= fu"ks/kkKk ds okn esa og okafNr vuqrks"k ÁkfIr dh vf/kdkjh ugha gSA bl Ádkj ge ikrs gS fd fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us i=koyh ij vk;h lk{; lkexzh dk lgh og lexz :i ls foopsu dj ,oa ÁLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa ij lgh :i ls voyEc ysrs gq, fook|d la[;k 1 tks oknhx.k ds fo:) fofuf'pr fd;k gS] mlesa ;g U;k;ky; fdlh Ádkj dh =qfV ugha ikrk gSA vr% fook|d la[;k 1 ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fofu'p; dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA 11 & ;g fook/kd Hkh fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us oknhx.k ds fo:) fofuf'pr fd;k gSA vk{ksfir fofu'p; dks pqukSrh nsrs gq, fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd oknhx.k dk rdZ jgk gS fd fookfnr edku ij HkkSfrd dCtk Áfroknhx.k dk vEckyky th ds thoudky esa dHkh ugha jgk] Áfroknhx.k vEckyky th dh vuqefr ls muds lkFk jg jgs Fks] lgLokeh ds :i esa ughaA pwafd ;g edku Lo0 vEckyky th dk Fkk] ,slh lwjr esa oknhx.k muds oS/k mrjkf/kdkjh gksus ls oknhx.k bl edku ds Lokeh gq,] ftlds fy, oknhx.k dks mDr tk;nkn ds LokfeRo ckcr~ ?kks"k.kk ,oa dCtk;kch gsrq vuqrks"k dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha gSA fdUrq fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us mi;qZDr lqLFkkfir fof/k ds foijhr vk{ksfir fofu'p; ikfjr fd;k gS] ftls vikLr fd;k tkosA fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd Áfroknhx.k us vk{ksfir fofu'p; dks mfpr o iqf"V ;ksX; cryk;k gSA tSlk fd mij fook/kd la[;k 1 ds fofu'p; esa ;g ik;k x;k gS fd Áfroknhx.k fookfnr edku esa Lo0 vEckyky th ds thoudky ls gh fuokl dj jgs gS] oknhx.k dk LokfeRo ,oa vkf/kiR; oknhx.k Li"V :i ls lkfcr ugha dj ik, gSA okfn;k dh ftjg esa 'kiFk&i= Án'kZ 1 o Án'kZ 2 Ánf'kZr djok, x, gS] ftuds voyksdu ls ;g ÁdV gksrk gS fd okfn;k us rFkkdfFkr olh;r fnuakd 19-02-1999 dks QthZ gksuk crk;k gS o blds lEcU/k esa iqfyl fjiksVZ djuk o tkap py jgh gksuk dFku fd;k gSA ;g 'kiFk&i= 14-12-1999 dk gS] fdUrq tkap esa D;k ifj.kke jgk gS] ;g 11 o"kZ dh vof/k ds mijkUr Hkh Li"V ugha fd;k x;k gS] ftlls ;g rks Li"V gS fd Áfroknh ds i{k esa Lo0 vEckyky th dh olh;r gS] ftlds fujLr gks tkus dh dksbZ lk{; oknhx.k us is'k ugha dh gS] vr% blls Áfroknhx.k ds bl dFku dks cy feyrk gS fd Lo0 vEckyky th us mudh Lo&vftZr lEifr gksus ls muds Áfroknhx.k ds i{k esa olh;r dj nh FkhA oknhx.k dk ;g dFku vo'; jgk gS fd Áfroknhx.k oknhx.k dh vuqKk ls bl edku esa fuokl dj jgs gS] fdUarq fo'oluh; lk{; ds vHkko esa oknhx.k dk ;g dFku ekus tkus ;ksX; ugha gS] vfirq Áfroknxh.k rks Lo0 vEckyky th ds thoudky ls gh fookfnr edku esa fuokl djrs vkuk lkfcr gqvk gSA pwafd oknhx.k dk bl fookfnr edku ij ySl ek= Hkh vkf/kiR; ugha gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa tc rd dCtk ÁkIr dj okn oknhx.k ÁLrqr ugha djrs gS] rc rd vkKkid fu"ks/kkKk ds ek/;e ls oknhx.k dks oknxzLr edku lqiqnZxh esa ugha fnyk;k tk ldrk gSA bl Ádkj ge ikrs gS fd fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us bl fook/kd ds lEcU/k esa mfpr :i ls foospu dj ;g fook/kd tks oknhx.k ds fo:) fofuf'pr fd;k gS] mlesa ;g U;k;ky; fdlh Ádkj dh =qfV ugha ikrk gS o iqf"V fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% fook/kd la[;k 2 ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fofu'p; dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA** 7. It is a settled proposition of law as discussed and propounded in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. And Ors. AIR 2008 SC 2033 that a simple suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, without there being a relief for declaration is maintainable. The relevant excerpts of the judgment aforesaid is extracted below:- "We may however clarify that a prayer of declaration will be necessary only if the denial of title by the defendant or challenge to plaintiff's title raises a cloud on the title of plaintiff to the property." 8. In the present case also the appellants have sought an order of restraint, qua the defendants that they should abstain from alienating or transferring the movable and immovable property owned and possessed by Amba Lal Khatik, while asserting that after his death, a right in such property has devolved to them. It is not in dispute that the appellants-plaintiffs have neither sought any declaration nor have paid appropriate court fee in this regard. 9. Both the Courts below have rightly held the suit to be not maintainable. 10. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned; for which, the present appeal is dismissed.