Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Ajeet Singh Mann Son Of Late Col. Shri … vs Dalip Singh Mann Alias Mann Son Of Late … on 2 July, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:24129]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 47/2025
Ajeet Singh Mann Son Of Late Col. Shri Bhani Singh, Aged About
63 Years, Resident Of Plot No 112 Awho Peeruparam Vihar
Ambabadi Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Dalip Singh Mann Alias Mann Son Of Late Col. Shri Bhani
Singh, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of House No.19,
Raghu Complex, Scheme 10, Alwar, Rajasthan. And Plot
No. D110, Ambabadi, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Col. R.k.s. Mann S/o Late Col. Shri Bhani Singh, Aged
About 72 Years, R/o Eg. 03 Aashiyana Gardens, Bhiwadi,
Alwar Bypass (Rajasthan).
3. Smt. Shakun Choudhary D/o Late Col. Shri Bhani Singh,
Aged About 65 Years, R/o Lovedale School, E-8, Bharat
Nagar, Gulmohar Road, Bhopal. (Madhya Pradesh).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Moomal Rathore, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anita Aggarwal, Adv. with
Mr. Laxmi Kant, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 02/07/2025
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner-
defendant No.3 (for short ‘the defendant No.3’) against the order
dated 13.11.2024 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge
No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Civil Suit No.29/2024, whereby the
application filed by the defendant No.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 read
with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 10:15:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24129] (2 of 4) [CR-47/2025]
Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 submits that the
respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for
partition and permanent injunction against the defendants in
which defendant No.3 filed an application before the trial court
under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC but trial court
vide order dated 13.11.2024 wrongly dismissed the application
filed by the defendant No.3.
Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 also submits that it
is an admitted position that disputed property was self acquired
property of father of the defendants as well as plaintiff. During the
lifetime, father Col. Shri Bhani Singh had executed a Will in favour
of the defendant No.3 and the same was also got registered.
Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 also submits that
father Col. Shri Bhani Singh also executed a gift deed in favour of
the defendant No.3 on 11.08.2023. The said gift deed was also
registered. So, on account of registered gift deed, defendant No.3
became owner of the disputed property. So, no cause of action
was accrued to the plaintiff. Plaintiff had not disclosed the cause of
action in the suit. Plaintiff also had not challenged the gift deed
executed in favour of the defendant No.3. So, present suit is not
maintainable. Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 also
submits that suit filed by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped
but trial court had committed error in dismissing the application
filed by the defendant No.3. So, order dated 13.11.2024 passed
by the trial court be set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff be
dismissed.
Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 has placed reliance
upon the following judgments : (1) Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 10:15:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24129] (3 of 4) [CR-47/2025]
Kalyanji Bhanusali (D) thr. LRs & Ors. in Civil Appeal
No.9519/2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.11618/2017)
decided on 09.07.2020 and (2) Sunita Ranga Vs. Vijayinder
Kumar & Ors. in CS (OS) 148/2023 & IA 8501/2024
decided on 05.11.2024.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.3 and submits
that trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the
defendant No.3 because while deciding the application under
Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, only averments of the
plaint are to be seen and not the defence of the defendants.
Disputed property was self acquired property of the father of the
defendants as well as plaintiff. So, plaintiff had 1/4th share in the
disputed property. At the time of the execution of the so-called gift
deed, their father was suffering from Alzheimer. So, he was not in
a position to execute the gift deed. Whether the cause of action
accrued to the defendants or not, is a matter of evidence. So, trial
court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.3.
So, present petition filed by the defendant No.3 be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the defendant No.3 as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiff.
It is an admitted position that the disputed property was self
acquired property of the father of the defendants as well as
plaintiff and while deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 11
read with Section 151 CPC, only averments in the plaint is to be
considered and not the defence of the defendants. So, in my
considered opinion, trial court has not committed any error in
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 10:15:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:24129] (4 of 4) [CR-47/2025]
dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.3. So, present
petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which
stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /96
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 10:15:15 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link