Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 363 (RAJ)

Ganeshi Lal v. Radha Devi

2024-02-27

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. 1. Since these instant petitions have arisen out of the order dated 13.02.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Tonk in Civil Suit No. 140/2000 (14/1996), whereby the suit for possession of room filed by respondent No. 1-Radha Devi under section 6 of Specific Relief Act was decreed, therefore, they are being decided together by this common order. 2. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 97/2015:-Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for possession under section 6 of Specific Relief Act relating to room which was fully described in para No. 1 of the plaint. Respondent No. 1-Radha Devi did not have any locus to file the suit according to the provisions of section 6 of the Specific Relief Act because at that time, suit property was not in her possession. As per her case, Rajendra Prasad was in the possession of the suit property on 09.07.1995. It is also not clear that Radha Devi was claiming possession through Rajendra Prasad only. Rajendra Prasad alone could file the suit for possession. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that Rajendra Prasad had lodged an FIR but after investigation, final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer. Rajendra Prasad had not appeared in the witness box, so, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn by the trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that as per statement of Madan Mohan, he had orally gifted the disputed property to Radha Devi but as per the Transfer of Property Act, if value of the gift property is more than Rs. 100/-, it should be registered. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the trial court passed the order on the weakness of the defendants. It is a settled proposition of law that no decree can be passed on the weaknesses of the defendants. Plaintiff had to stand on its own legs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that Radha Devi failed to adduce cogent evidence that she had possession of the disputed property on or before 09.07.1995. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that Radha Devi had to adduce the evidence regarding possession of the disputed property and trial court also enquired the matter regarding possession of Radha Devi but no enquiry was made regarding title by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that Radha Devi had to adduce the evidence regarding possession of the disputed property and trial court also enquired the matter regarding possession of Radha Devi but no enquiry was made regarding title by the trial court. So, order of the trial court be set aside. 5. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 83/2015:- Learned counsel for the petitioner has also adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 97/2015 and further submits that the trial court had not provided the opportunity to cross-examine Madan Mohan, who is husband of Radha Devi. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that respondents had not adduced any evidence regarding property came in the possession of respondent No. 1. She had not filed any document to show her possession. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that no title document was filed by Radha Devi. Radha Devi in her statement admitted that disputed property was in the name of Bhanwar Lai. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that respondent No. 1 had filed a suit against the petitioners for eviction and arrears of rent for which civil regular first appeal is pending. So, order of the trial court be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Sudhakar v. Nanaji & Ors. reported in 2018 (1) Civil Court Cases 220 (Bombay); (2) Daulat Singh & Anr. v. Tulsiram & Anr. reported in AIR 1990 Madhya Pradesh 348; (3) P. Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar reported in 2023 (4) DNJ (SC) 1319 and (4) Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes & ors. v. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through LRs reported in 2012 (2) Supreme 602 . 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that suit under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is summary in nature. No detailed enquiry is necessary and enquiry regarding title is not permissible. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that petitioners had remedy to file a suit for declaration. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that Radha Devi by way of evidence clearly proved that she was in possession of the disputed room till 09.07.1995. So, the trial court rightly decreed the suit filed by the respondent-Radha Devi. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that petitioners had remedy to file a suit for declaration. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that Radha Devi by way of evidence clearly proved that she was in possession of the disputed room till 09.07.1995. So, the trial court rightly decreed the suit filed by the respondent-Radha Devi. So, revision petitions be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Sanjay Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Gulbahar Sheikh & Ors. reported in 2004 (3) Supreme 205 ; (2) Sadashiv Shyama Sawant (d) through LRs & Ors. v. Anita Anant Sawant reported in 2010 (1) Supreme 698 and (3) Padartha Amat & anr. v. Siba Sahu reported in AIR 1993 Orissa 92. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondent. 10. Trial court while decreeing the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 clearly mentioned that respondent No. 1 by way of cogent evidence proved that she was in possession of the disputed premises till 09.07.1995. Enquiry regarding title of the disputed premises is not permissible in the present suit. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court had not committed any error in decreeing the suit filed by respondent No. 1. So, present revision petitions being devoid of merit, are liable to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly. 11. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.