Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Shekhawati Shikshan Sansthan vs Phoolchand S/O Bhagwanaram on 18 July, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:26801]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 323/2024
Shekhawati Shikshan Sansthan, N.h.11 Narayan Ka Bas,
Laxmangarh, District Sikar Through Secretary Shri Sunil Kumar
S/o Banwari, R/o Bhukharo Ka Bas, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner-Defendant No. 1
Versus
1. Phoolchand S/o Bhagwanaram, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Village Ghassu Ka Bas, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar,
Rajasthan.
-----Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff
2. Mohri W/o Bhagwana, R/o Village Madhopura (Ghassu Ka
Bas) Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
3. Banarasi D/o Bhagwana, R/o Village Madhopura (Ghassu
Ka Bas) Tehsil Laxmangarh. District Sikar, Rajasthan.
(Presently W/o Hetra, R/o Katrathal, District Sikar).
4. Sharwan Kumar S/o Panne Singh, R/o Village Bhadwasi,
Tehsil And District Sikar, Rajasthan.
5. Bhanwarlal Godara S/o Bhagirathmal Godara, R/o Village
Bhukharo Ka Bas, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
6. Deputy Registrar, Laxmangarh, District Sikar.
7. Tehsildar, Laxmangarh Land Holder, Government Of
Rajasthan.
—-Defendants/Proforma-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, Adv. with
Mr. Uddeshya Vijayvergia, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kasana, Adv.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 18/07/2025
This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-
defendant No. 1 (for short ‘the defendant No. 1’) under Section
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 11:18:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:26801] (2 of 5) [CR-323/2024]
115 CPC against the order dated 07.09.2024 passed by Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, Sikar (for short ‘the trial
Court’) in civil suit No. 23/2023 titled as “Phoolchand Vs.
Shekhawati Sikshan Sansthan & Ors.”, whereby the application
filed by defendant No. 1 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been
dismissed.
Learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 submits that
respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a civil suit
for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed
dated 05.05.2023 in which defendant No. 1 filed an application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC mentioning therein that no cause of
action accrued to the plaintiff for filing the suit.
Learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 also submits that by
way of suit, the plaintiff wanted to cancel the sale deed executed
by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No. 1 on
05.05.2023. The value of the said sale deed is Rs. 23,80,900/- but
plaintiff had not submitted proper court fees as per valuation of
the suit. He filed the court fees as per Section 7(2) A of the
Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act which is not
applicable.
Learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 also submits that
plaintiff in his plaint mentioned that he had incurred the expenses
in the marriage of defendant No. 3 and for that reason, she had
relinquished her share in the disputed property. It is also
mentioned in the plaint that defendant No. 2 has no financial need
because she receives monthly widowed pension due to her
husband’s Bhagwana death. Sale deed was executed without any
sale consideration. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had no knowledge with
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 11:18:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:26801] (3 of 5) [CR-323/2024]
regard to sale deed and they had not filed the suit for cancellation
of the sale deed. They are the co-sharer of the disputed property
on account of Bhagwana’s death.
Learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 also submits that
provision of Succession Act is not applicable in agricultural land.
Plaintiff had not stated in the plaint that he is ready to purchase
the disputed land on same consideration as paid by the defendant
No. 1. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 further submits
that defendant No. 1 filed a suit for partition before the Sub-
Divisional Officer (SDO), Laxmangarh. So, the suit is barred by
law. Therefore, the trial Court had committed an error in
dismissing the application filed by the defendant No. 1. So,
present petition filed by the defendant No. 1 deserves to be
allowed.
Learned counsel for defendant No. 1 has placed reliance
upon the following judgments-:
1. Vijaya Choudhary Vs. Ramniwas and Ors. in civil revision
petition No. 17/2025 decided on 10.07.2025.
2. Babu Ram Vs. Santokh Singh (Deceased) through his
legal representatives and Ors. in civil appeal No.
2553/2019 decided on 07.03.2019.
3. Pyare Lal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania reported in (2019) 3
SCC 692.
4. Jai Prakash Singh Vs. Bachchu Lal reported in
MANU/UP/4533/2019.
5. Ram Ratan Vs. Chandra Prakash reported in 2012 SCC
OnLine Raj. 3838.
6. Mohd. Noor & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. reported in
(1994) 5 SCC 562.
7. Ashutosh Chaturvedi Vs. Prano Devi reported in (2008) 15
SCC 610.
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 11:18:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:26801] (4 of 5) [CR-323/2024]
8. Shivaji Balaram Haibatti Vs. Avinash Maruthi Pawar
reported in (2018) 11 SCC 652.
9. Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal & Anr. reported in
(2008) 17 SCC 491.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 and submits
that the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the
defendant No. 1. Disputed land is undivided and defendant Nos. 2
and 3 have no right to sell the disputed land to the defendant No.
1. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that Section 22 of
the Hindu Succession Act is applicable on agricultural land. So, the
trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant
No. 1.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the
judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Babu Ram
Vs. Santosh Singh (Deceased) through his LRs and Ors. in
civil appeal No. 2553/2019 decided on 07.03.2019.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel defendant No. 1 as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff
and perused the material available on record.
It is an admitted position that by way of the suit, plaintiff
wanted to cancel the sale deed executed by defendant Nos. 2 and
3 in favour of defendant No. 1. Valuation of the sale deed is Rs.
23,80,900/- but the plaintiff had paid court fees of Rs. 891/- only.
He had to pay the court fees as per the valuation of the property.
It is also an admitted position that the sale deed was
executed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as each of them was having
1/3rd share in the disputed property. Upon death of Bhagwana,
their names were mutated in the revenue records and they
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 11:18:34 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:26801] (5 of 5) [CR-323/2024]
subsequently sold their respective shares in the land in question to
defendant No. 1. Contention of the plaintiff is that he had incurred
the expenses in the marriage of the defendant No. 3, so,
defendant No. 3 orally relinquished her share in the Bhagwana’s
property and defendant No. 2 had no need to sell the disputed
land because she was getting monthly widowed pension on
account of Bhagwana’s death, but they had not filed any suit for
cancellation of the sale deed against the defendant No. 1 to the
effect that defendant No. 1 had fraudulently and without
consideration got executed the sale deed. Plaintiff had not got
declared himself as an owner of the disputed property. So, in my
considered opinion, the plaintiff had no right to file suit for
cancellation of the sale deed dated 05.05.2023 executed by
defendant Nos. 2 and 3. So, the trial Court had committed an
error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No. 1.
Therefore, the petition filed by the defendant No. 1 deserves to be
allowed.
Accordingly, the civil revision petition filed by the defendant
No. 1 is allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed for
want of jurisdiction.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Tahir/100
(Downloaded on 08/08/2025 at 11:18:34 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link