Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1456 (RAJ)

Prabhu Dayal v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-05-06

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2022
ORDER 1. Although, the case is listed in the orders category but with the consent of counsel for the parties, the case is heard finally and decided today itself. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 07.04.1998 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer whereby the revision petition filed by the legal representatives of Bhagwana Ram has been allowed and the order dated 30.01.1994 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh has been quashed and set aside to the extent of impleading the petitioner as respondent/defendant in the suit. 4. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that a suit for partition was filed by Bhagwana Ram against Chet Ram in the year 1987 for partition of the land situated at Khasra No. 145, 146, 183, 184, 174, 171 & 180. In the year 1992, Chet Ram passed away and legal representatives of Chetram, namely, widow Sua Devi & adopted son Kishan Lal were brought on record. 5. Chetram executed a will on 20.09.1991 in favour of the petitioner which was registered before the Sub-registrar. According to that will, certain pieces of land of Khasra No. 145 & 171 were stated to be given to the petitioner. On the strength of the will executed in favour of the petitioner, the revenue entries of the land were made. 6. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred an application for being impleaded as party respondent in the suit preferred by Bhagwana Ram. The application preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 31.01.1994. This order of 31.01.1994 was assailed by Bhagwana Ram by way of filing a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. However, during the pendency of revision petition before learned Board of Revenue, Bhagwana Ram died and his legal heirs were taken on record. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 07.04.1998 allowed the revision petition filed by Bhagwana Ram setting aside the order dated 30.01.1994 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh to the extent of impleading the petitioner as party respondent to the suit filed by Bhagwana Ram. The Board of Revenue vide its order dated 07.04.1998 allowed the revision petition filed by Bhagwana Ram setting aside the order dated 30.01.1994 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ratangarh to the extent of impleading the petitioner as party respondent to the suit filed by Bhagwana Ram. Thus, this writ petition has been filed by petitioner Prabhu Dayal on the strength that the land which is subject matter of the suit for partition preferred by Bhagwana Ram has been mutated in the name of petitioner and any order passed in partition suit will affect the rights of petitioner. Since, the will executed by Chetram in favour of petitioner Prabhu Dayal has not been questioned so far and, therefore, the petitioner is in possession of the lands mentioned above in the preceding paras on the strength of will executed by Chetram in his favour. Therefore, he is a necessary party in the suit proceedings. 7. Learned senior counsel has very categorically stated that since the suit for partition was filed by Bhagwana Ram, therefore, there is no question of agitating or questioning veracity of the will in the present case. He, therefore, prays that the revisional order passed by learned Board of Revenue may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be impleaded as party respondent in the suit for partition preferred by Bhagawana Ram to protect the rights and interest of the petitioner, if any. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the proceedings pending before the trial court are for the partition of the properties between plaintiff Bhagwana Ram and defendant Chetram. If the petitioner is allowed to be impleaded as party respondent in the suit, the scope of suit will increase and the same will unnecessarily delay the suit proceedings. He submits that scope of partition suit should not be allowed to be enhanced and no discussions/ deliberations with respect to the will executed in favour of the petitioner should be allowed to be made before the trial court in the suit proceedings. 9. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 10. The fact that the suit for partition has been preferred by Bhagwana Ram is not in dispute between the parties. 9. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 10. The fact that the suit for partition has been preferred by Bhagwana Ram is not in dispute between the parties. The present petitioner is getting himself impleaded as party respondent in the suit is on the basis of certain properties coming to his share on the strength of will executed by Chetram in his favour and those properties have been mutated in the name of the present petitioner and presently they are under the possession of petitioner Prabhu Dayal. 11. This court feels that the interest of justice will be met, if petitioner Prabhu Dayal is impleaded as party respondent in the suit preferred by Bhagwana Ram to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings because the petitioner is holding certain pieces of land given by Chetram in will and, therefore, if the petitioner is impleaded as party respondent in the suit, it will not prejudice the case of plaintiff Bhagwana Ram in any manner. 12. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned revisional order dated 07.04.1998 passed by Board of Revenue, Ajmer is quashed and set aside to the extent of denying impleadment of the petitioner as party respondent in the suit. The petitioner is impleaded as party respondent in the suit preferred by Bhagwana Ram. 13. Further, in view of the submissions made by both the learned counsel, it is ordered that the trial court shall strictly decide the suit preferred by Bhagwana Ram for partition and the issue with respect to veracity of the will and inter-se dispute, if at all arises during the pendency of the suit between the legal representatives of Chetram and petitioner Prabhu Dayal will not be decided in the suit of Bhagwana Ram. Since, it is a suit for partition preferred by Bhagwana Ram, therefore, no proceedings with respect to execution of will between Chetram and petitioner Prabhu Dayal will be entertained by the trial court in the suit. 14. It is made clear that if there is any dispute with respect to the will executed in the name of Prabhu Dayal, the parties will be free to agitate the same before the appropriate forum. 15. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. 16. 14. It is made clear that if there is any dispute with respect to the will executed in the name of Prabhu Dayal, the parties will be free to agitate the same before the appropriate forum. 15. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. 16. In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.