Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 446 (RAJ)

Lila Dhar Agarwal v. Yatish Agarwal

2024-03-13

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. 1. Since, both revision petitions have arisen out of the same order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 4, Kota in Civil Suit No. 3/2012, hence, they are being decided together. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants (for short 'the defendants') submits that plaintiffs-non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 (for short 'the plaintiffs') had filed a suit for partition in which they stated that the property mentioned in para 2 and 3 of the plaint is of the joint Hindu family property and said property was not divided. 3. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that the defendants had filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC in which it was clearly stated that said property was not joint Hindu family property. In relation to the, property which came in the share of the Daulatram Ji, he had executed a gift deed in favour of his wife on 21.12.1957. The plaintiffs had deliberately concealed these facts. 4. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that by way of family settlement, Gheesi Bai and Daulatram Ji partitioned the property on 31.03.1975 and 30.03.1976. Industrial Plot No. F- 241, Road No. 5 Indraprasth Industrial Area, Kota was in the name of Smt. Veena Agarwal and said plot was purchased by her in an auction. So, it is her personal property. As per the Benami Transaction Act, suit cannot be instituted regarding said properties. 5. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the plaintiffs had filed the suit after the lapse of 54 years without challenging the gift deed and after 36 years of family settlement dated 31.03.1975 and 30.03.1976. So, the present suit is time barred. 6. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that RIICO had executed lease deed in favour of respondent No. 3-Murlidhar in relation to Plot No. C-158, RIICO Limited because he had deposited the development charges and other amounts from time to time for the said plot. So, he is owner of the said property. But the plaintiffs had cleverly suppressed these facts, so suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed and the order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the trial court be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- S. Laxmi Kumari v. L. V. Bhopal @ Siddheshwaran and ors. But the plaintiffs had cleverly suppressed these facts, so suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed and the order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the trial court be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- S. Laxmi Kumari v. L. V. Bhopal @ Siddheshwaran and ors. reported in 2015 AIR CC 3087, Dorswamy v. Sivasankaran and ors. reported in 2014(2) KHC 420 , Rameshwar Mistry and Anr. v. Bebulal Mistry reported in 1990 (1) BLJR 587 , Saroj Salkan v. Suma Singh and Ors. Sh. Surender Kumar v. Sh. Dhanu Ram and ors. reported in 2016 SCC Online Del 333, Uttam v. Saubhag Singh and Ors. reported in (1986) 3 SCC 567 , Yudhister v. Ashok Kumar reported in (1987) 1 SCC 204, Bhanwar Singh v. Puran and Ors. reported in (2008) 3 SCC 87 , Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. M. Karthikeyan reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 112 Hardeo Rai v. Sakuntala Devi & Ors. reported in (2008) 7 SCC 46 Bhup Singh & Ors. v. Raj Singh @ Rajinder Singh and Anr. reported in 2018(4) RCR (Civil) 241. M. Arumugam v. Ammaniammal & Ors. reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 15. Radha Bai v. Ram Narayan and Ors. reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1499. Kiran Devi v. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board and Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 280. Ravi v. Sajjan Kumar & Ors. reported in 2019 SCC Online Del 10605. T. Arivandandam v. T. V. Satyapal and Anr. reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467 . K. Akbar Ali v. K. Umar Khan & Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 238. Bharvagi Construction and Ors. v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Ors. Vijay Singh and Anr. v. Buddha & Ors. reported in 2012(3) WLC (Raj) 673. Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society represented by its Chairman v. Ponniamman Educational Trust Represented by its chairperson/Managing Trustee reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706 . Abdul Wasi v. Abdul Kadir Anant Pal Singh v. Sumer Singh & Anr. in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 38/2010 decided on 22.12.2016. Key Pee Buildtech Private Limited v. Shahjahan Begum Maharaj Shri. Manvendrasinjhi Ranjitsinghji Jadeja v. Rajmata Vijaykunverba. Laxmi Housing Udyog Private Limited v. Sharad Subramanyam and Ors. Sopan Sudhdeo Sable & Ors. v. Assistant Charity and Ors. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 137 . in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 38/2010 decided on 22.12.2016. Key Pee Buildtech Private Limited v. Shahjahan Begum Maharaj Shri. Manvendrasinjhi Ranjitsinghji Jadeja v. Rajmata Vijaykunverba. Laxmi Housing Udyog Private Limited v. Sharad Subramanyam and Ors. Sopan Sudhdeo Sable & Ors. v. Assistant Charity and Ors. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 137 . Madan Lal Vaid v. Nand Kumar Walia and Ors. Holy Health and Education Society v. Delhi Development Authority. Asha Khanna and Ors. v. Pankaj Khanna and Ors. Mahaveer Sadhna Sansthan v. Smt. Shashi Mathur reported in 2017 (2) RLW 924 (Raj.) and Rajendra Bajoria & Ors. v. Hemant Kumar Jalan and Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 764. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that the trial court vide order dated 20.12.2016 has rightly dismissed the applications filed by the defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC because the question as to whether the disputed properties are joint Hindu family properties or not, would be decided after taking the evidence of the parties. So, the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the applications filed by the defendants. So, the present revision petitions being devoid of merits, are liable to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 10. The question as to whether the properties for which the plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition have been partitioned or not and the said properties are joint Hindu family properties or not, would be decided after taking the evidence of the parties. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the applications filed by the defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. So, the present civil revision petitions being devoid of merits, are liable to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly. 11. Pending application(s), if any also stand(s), dismissed.