Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 48 (RAJ)

Ratan Lal v. Kanna Dangi

2021-01-06

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2021
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the orders dated 05.01.2019 and 26.04.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court'). 2. The trial court vide order dated 05.01.2019 has rejected two applications preferred on behalf of the petitioners for impleading them as defendants in the suit filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 against the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and vide order dated 26.04.2019 it has rejected the application preferred on behalf of the petitioners under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC seeking review of the order dated 05.01.2019. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Contending therein that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 while using the similarity of their father's name has executed power of attorney fraudulently and thereafter sold the land. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have sought declaration that the said power of attorney be declared null and void and further sought permanent injunction to the effect that respondent Nos. 3 to 5 be restrained from interfering in their possession and peaceful enjoyment of the property in question. 4. In the said suit, applications were preferred on behalf of the petitioners for impleading them as defendants solely on the ground that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are claiming themselves as owners of the land in question on the basis of a will, said to have been executed in their favour, however, the said will is forged one as the executor of the will had no right to alienate the property in question because the said property is ancestral property. The trial court has rejected the prayer of the petitioners for being impleaded as party respondents vide order dated 05.01.2019 while observing that in the pending suit, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had questioned the execution of power of attorney by the respondent No.3 in favour of the respondent No.4 and the legality of the said will, on the basis of which the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are claiming themselves as owner of the land in question, is not raised in the suit by any of the defendant. 5. 1 and 2 are claiming themselves as owner of the land in question, is not raised in the suit by any of the defendant. 5. The trial court is of the view that when the question regarding the validity of the will is not before it, the applicants cannot be treated as necessary or proper party in the suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The application filed on behalf of the petitioners for reviewing of the order dated 05.01.2019 has also been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 26.04.2019 reiterating the same reasons and for the reason that the petitioners have failed to point out any mistake apparent on the face of the record in the earlier order passed by it. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order because in the suit the plaintiffs have only challenged the execution of the power of attorney and subsequent sale deed executed on that basis and the question regarding the execution of will in their favour is not a point in issue in the said suit. 7. Hence, no case for interference is made out in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. 8. Stay petition also stands dismissed.