Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2924 (RAJ)

Ranka Buildcon Sole Proprietor Firm v. Lalludas

2022-12-09

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2022
ORDER 1. Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India against the order dt. 3.2.2021 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur District Jaipur in Civil Suit No.103/2019 (39/2017) titled as Lallu Das & ors. vs. M/s. Ranka Buildcon & ors whereby the issues No.8 & 9 regarding the court fees and pecuniary jurisdiction of the court were decided in favour of plaintiff/respondents and against the petitioner/defendant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that four of the present respondents alongwith four other persons had filed a Public Interest Litigation. The writ petition was registered as D.B. CW (PIL) No.4606/2016 titled as Lallu Das Swami & ors. vs. Chief Secretary Govt. and said writ petition was dismissed in limine vide order dt. 8.8.2016 in which no direction was given for entertaining the civil suit or condonation of delay but four respondents who were petitioner in PIL alongwith two other persons had filed the civil suit for declaring the sale deed dt.11.12.2012 as null and void and restoration of possession of suit property. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and said application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dt. 21.2.2018. Petitioner preferred a revision against the said order, High Court vide order dt. 7.2.2020 directed the trial court to frame the issue of court fees and pecuniary jurisdiction of the court and decide as a preliminary issue. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial court framed as many as 13 issues on 3.3.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that issue No.8 was related insufficient court fees and issue No.9 was related to pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial court vide order dt. 3.2.2021 decided both the issues in favour of respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to disputed sale, Mahant Kailash Das had sold 254.17 square meter (304 square yard) land behind children (Baby Park), Museum road, Village Kishanpole, District & Tehsil Jaipur situated in khasra No.326 to 330 to M/s. Vimal Umaravmal Builders Private Limited on 12.6.2008. That sale was not challenged by anyone including respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clearly shows that disputed land property is of Mahant Kailash Das not of Dadu Sampradaye. That sale was not challenged by anyone including respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that clearly shows that disputed land property is of Mahant Kailash Das not of Dadu Sampradaye. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that UIT, Jaipur acquired 1 bigha 18 biswa land located in khasra No.350/2, Village Kishanpole and Tehshil Jaipur and said land was in Khatedari of Mahant Kailash Das and award of Rs.23,171/- was credited in favour of Mahant Prahlad Das by land acquisition officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mahant Prahlad Das challenged the said proceedings and during the reference Mahant Prahlad Das was expired and Mahant Kailash Das was brought on record as legal heirs and award was increased to Rs.46,169 with 4% interest and said money was deposited in account of Mahant Kailash Das. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a bona-fide purchaser and he had purchased the disputed land on consideration of Rs.27,29,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suit property was also declared as personal property of Mahant Prahlad Das during his life time by Collector (Jagir) Jaipur vide order dt. 13.3.1969. So, Dadu Sampradaye as well as respondents have nothing to do with the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents wanted to cancel the sale deed dt. 11.12.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents cleverly drafted the petition and deliberately choose to value the suit under Section 24(e) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 in order to avoid court fees and altering the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 24(A) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961, respondents had to pay the court fees on the market value of the suit property. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Civil Judge (Junior Division) has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit. So, order of the trial court dt. 3.2.2021 be quashed and directed the trial court to return the suit for presentation before the appropriate jurisdictional court with appropriate court fees. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:-1. Golden Tringle Fort and Palace Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajkumari Sidhi Kumari & ors. in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.638/2002 decided on 19.9.2002; 2. Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) vs. Mahant Ram Niwas and anr. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:-1. Golden Tringle Fort and Palace Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajkumari Sidhi Kumari & ors. in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.638/2002 decided on 19.9.2002; 2. Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) vs. Mahant Ram Niwas and anr. reported in (2008) 11 SCC 753 ; 3. Foreshore Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Praveen D. Desai (Dead) thr. Lrs & ors. 2015(2) Civil Court Cases 628 (S.C.); 4. M/s. Shakti Sut Udhyog through its Partners vs. Additional District Judge, Ajmer in AIR 2013 Raj. 74 . 5. Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koli Trust, Virudhunagar vs. Chandran & ors. 2018 SAR (Civil Supp. 1) 98. 6. Ram Saran & anr. vs. Smt. Ganga Devi AIR 1972 SC 2685 ; 7. Dipak Bose @ Haripada vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1972 SC 2686 . 8. J. Vasanthi & ors. vs. N. Ramani Kanthammal (D) Rep. By Lrs. & ors. 2017 SAR (Civil )940; 9. Vithal Tukaram Kadam & anr. vs. Vamanaro Sawalaram Bhosale & ors. 2017 SAR (Civil) 951; 10. Makhan Lal vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur City in S.B. Civil Revision No.104/1977, decided on 13.1.1978. 11. Prahlad Bagdi & anr. vs. Smt. Gayatri Agarwal & ors. 2021 (1) RLW 588 (Raj.); 12. Mahendra Singh Ranawat vs. Rukmani Devi & anr. in S.B. Civil Revision No.153/2016 decided on 3.2.2017. 13. Smt. Kamli Devi vs. Smt. Rampyari in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.280/2022 decided on 3.8.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that petitioners are not a party in the sale deed and they are followers of Dadu Sampradaye. They do not want to cancel the sale deed because sale deed is ab initio void. Mahant Kailash Das had no right to sale the disputed property because said property belongs to Dadu Sampradaye. So, trial court rightly came to the conclusion that suit is adequately valued and within jurisdiction of the civil court, Junior Division. So, petition be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgments:1. Bharat Bhushan Gupta vs. Pratap Narain Verma and anr. reported in AIR 2022 SC 2867 ; 2. Rathnayarmaraja vs. Smt. Vimal AIR 1961 SC 1299 ; 3. Kamal Engineering Works vs. Ashwani Kumar and ors. (1989) 2 RLW 463; 4. Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & ors. Bharat Bhushan Gupta vs. Pratap Narain Verma and anr. reported in AIR 2022 SC 2867 ; 2. Rathnayarmaraja vs. Smt. Vimal AIR 1961 SC 1299 ; 3. Kamal Engineering Works vs. Ashwani Kumar and ors. (1989) 2 RLW 463; 4. Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & ors. in Civil Appeal No.2811-2813/2010 decided on 29.3.2010; 5. Esah vs. The Wakf Committee, Kota in S.B. Civil Misc. AppealNo.14/1978 decided on 20.11.1987; 6. Kedar Agarwal & anr. vs. Rajkumar Agarwal & ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7484 of 2017 decided on 3.9.2020. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 7. It is an admitted position that respondents wanted to declare null and void the sale deed dt.11.12.2012. Petitioner had purchased the suit property on consideration of Rs.27,29,00,000/. Respondent failed to submit any document regarding ownership of disputed land in the name of Dadu Sampradaye. Prior to this, Mahant Kailash Das also sold part of the disputed land to M/s. Vimal Umaravmal Builders Private Limited by registered sale deed dt.12.6.2008 and the said sale deed was not challenged by anyone including respondents. Respondents wrongly filed the suit by invoking Section 24(e) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961. Respondent had to file the civil suit by invoking Section 24A of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961. So, in my considered opinion, trial court wrongly came to the conclusion that petitioner can file the suit by invoking provision of Section 24(e) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961. So, finding of the trial court regarding the issues No.8 & 9 in favour of respondent against the petitioner deserves to be set aside. 8. Therefore, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order of the trial court dt.3.2.2021 is set aside and trial court is directed to return the civil suit to the respondent for presenting before the jurisdictional court with adequate court fees.