Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 37 (RAJ)

Pandurang Marda v. Vinod Kanwar

2022-01-05

DINESH MEHTA

body2022
ORDER 1. The writ petition in hand is directed against the order dated 01.12.2021, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Makrana, District Nagaur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court'), vide which the order dated 26.02.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Makrana, District Nagaur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned trial Court') has been reversed. 2. Pithily put, facts germane for the present purposes are that the petitioner-plaintiff initiated a suit for injunction contending that a plot, ad-measuring 6300 sq. ft., situated in Village Ranigaon, as mentioned in para No.l of the plaint, belongs to the plaintiff and has come in his share by virtue of a family settlement dated 28.02.1969 (written in Marathi) on which the defendants are illegally raising construction. 3. In support of his assertion, a patta issued by the Maharaja of Marwar was also relied upon, which is written in vernacular marwari. 4. Along with the aforesaid suit, an application seeking temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed. 5. The defendants opposed the grant of temporary injunction by filing reply asserting that the defendants are having a registered patta in their favour issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat in furtherance of an agreement to sell dated 23.07.2018, executed by one Mr. Moolchand Mardha. 6. Considering the material available on record, the trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction and vide order dated 26.02.2019 required the defendants to maintain status quo on the subject piece of land. 7. The order aforesaid was challenged by the respondents (defendants) by way of an appeal before the Appellate Court, which came to be allowed vide order dated 01.12.2021. 8. The Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal, has observed that the documents of plaintiff, namely, patta issued by the Maharaja of Marwar was in vernacular marwari language whereas the family settlement dated 28.02.1969 was in Marathi. As translations thereof were not produced, the Appellate Court found itself unable to adjudge the plaintiff's right, title and interest in the property. 9. Mr. Sanjeev Johari, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Appellate Court has erred in deciding the issue of prima facie case against the petitioner (plaintiff) and in favour of the respondents (defendants). As translations thereof were not produced, the Appellate Court found itself unable to adjudge the plaintiff's right, title and interest in the property. 9. Mr. Sanjeev Johari, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Appellate Court has erred in deciding the issue of prima facie case against the petitioner (plaintiff) and in favour of the respondents (defendants). He submitted that when the defendants have admittedly derived the title on the basis of an agreement to sell, which was not only an unregistered document, even applicable stamp duty thereupon was not paid, the Appellate Court could not have held prima-facie case to be in their favour. 10. He argued that as against this, the petitioner-plaintiff had produced enough documentary evidence to show that the petitioner was having right, title and interest in the said plot. 11. Mr. G.R. Punia, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents-defendants submitted that even on perusal of the family settlement, the location of land, its measurement and its neighbourhood cannot be traced. He argued that in absence of any categorical indication of the plot and its measurement, the petitioner's assertion about the ownership and interest in the plot in question is untenable. 12. It may be noted that on the last date of hearing, the Court required/directed an English translation of the family settlement dated 28.02.1969 to be filed and the same has been filed. 13. Though rival counsel have raised the objection about the admissibility of the documents relied upon by their opposite parties for want of registration and payment of appropriate stamp duty, this Court does not deem it appropriate to make any observation in this regard, as the same may prejudice rights of the parties. 14. Having perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the basic document of title on which the petitioner claims to have interest in the property, is the patta issued by Maharaja of Marwar and the family settlement dated 28.02.1969 and both of them were in a language, which neither the trial Court nor the Appellate Court understood. 15. Such being the position, the petitioner's assertion and his claim of prima-facie case in his favour could not have been examined much less decided by the trial Court nor could the Appellate Court have rejected plaintiff's claim merely by observing that the same is in Marathi. 16. 15. Such being the position, the petitioner's assertion and his claim of prima-facie case in his favour could not have been examined much less decided by the trial Court nor could the Appellate Court have rejected plaintiff's claim merely by observing that the same is in Marathi. 16. The trial Court and the Appellate court both ought to have directed the plaintiff to produce translation of those documents in order to examine plaintiff's rights for imparting justice. 17. Be that as it may. The orders passed by the trial Court so also the Appellate Court are without appreciation of relevant and crucial evidence. The same are liable to be and are thus, set aside. The application for temporary injunction is restored to the docket of the trial Court. 18. The petitioner-plaintiff shall file Hindi translation of the patta in question and the family settlement dated 28.02.1969 on or before 21.01.2022. 19. Plaintiff to file certified copy of the order instant within a week. The T.I. application will be taken up by the trial Court on 21.01.2022 as the first date of hearing, whereafter, the trial Court will hear the matter afresh, after taking into account the documents (including translation thereof) filed by the plaintiff so also by the defendants. 20. Any observation made by this Court in the present order shall not come in the way of the trial Court while taking a fresh look at the matter and decide petitioner's application for temporary injunction afresh. 21. The trial Court shall try to decide the application for temporary injunction as early as possible, preferably by 28.02.2022. 22. Before deciding the application for temporary injunction finally, the trial Court may consider plaintiff's request for grant of ad-interim injunction in accordance with law. 23. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. 24. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.