Omprakash Sharma v. Kalyan and Ors

Kamlesh S/o Shri Hariram, R/o Sherpura, Tehsil Phagi, District Dudu, (Raj.)

6. Mulchand S/o Shri Hariram, R/o Sherpura, Tehsil Phagi, District Dudu, (Raj.)

7. Vishnu S/o Shri Hariram, R/o Sherpura, Tehsil Phagi, District Dudu, (Raj.)

8. Smt. Bhuri Devi W/o Shri Hariram, R/o Sherpura, Tehsil Phagi, District Dudu, (Raj.)

9. Mamta @ Anita Devi D/o Late Shri Hariram And W/o Shri Ashok Kumar, R/o Gram Nashnoda, Post Gadota Viya Bagru, Tehsil Mojmabad, District Dudu, (Raj.)

10. Suman Devi D/o Late Shri Hariram And W/o Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, R/o Gram Khatwad Post Jhag, Tehsil Mojmabad, District Dudu, (Raj.) ----Petitioners/Defendant Nos. 1-2 and 4-11 Versus

1. Om Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Narayan Lal Sharma, Aged About 80 Years, R/o House No. 247, Mangla Mata Marg, Khare Kuyen Ki Gali, Brahmpuri, Jaipur, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff

2. Nanchi D/o Late Shri Ramnarayan, R/o Sherpura, Tehsil Phagi, District Dudu, (Raj.)

3. Rajulal S/o Late Shri Ramrai, R/o Sherpura, Tehsil Phagi, District Dudu, (Raj.)

4. Kailash Chandra S/o Shri Ramrai, R/o Sherpura, Tehsil Phagi, District Dudu, (Raj.) [2025:RJ-JP:32473] (2 of 6) [CR-102/2025]

5. Mohni Devi W/o Shri Ram Sahai Sain, R/o Gram Bhabhoriya, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Raj.

6. Mahesh Sain S/o Tarachand Sain, R/o Gram Bhabhoriya, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Raj.

7. Dharmendra Sain S/o Tarachand Sain, R/o Gram Bhabhoriya, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Raj.

8. State Of Rajasthan, Through And District Magistrate, District Dudu, (Raj.)

9. Sub Registrar, Registration And Stamps, Phagi, Tehsil Phagi, District Dudu, (Raj.) ---Proforma Respondent Nos. 2 to 9/Defendant Nos. 3 and 12-18 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Jain, Adv. with Mr. Aamir, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Pal Garg, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 21/08/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendant Nos. 1 & 2 and 4 to 11 (for short 'the defendants') under Section 115 of the CPC against the order dated 03.12.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Phagi, District Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 09/2024 titled as "Omprakash Sharma Vs. Kalyan and Ors.", by which the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit under Order VII Rule 1 CPC for declaration of will dated 08.08.1962, sale deed dated 17.06.1971 and gift deed dated 19.09.1974 as null and void, as well as subsequent sale deed dated 24.03.2005, will [2025:RJ-JP:32473] (3 of 6) [CR-102/2025] dated 22.04.2006 and two relinquish deed dated 02.05.2011 and gift deed dated 09.11.2020 as null and void and permanent injunction against the defendants and proforma respondents in which defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC but the trial Court vide order dated 03.12.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the plaintiff had knowledge about will dated 08.08.1962 because in relation to said will, Smt. Gulab Devi had lodged an FIR No. 82/1975 in Police Station Bagru, in which statement of plaintiff was recorded during the course of the investigation. In mutation proceedings, took place before Tehsildar, Fagi the plaintiff appeared as the Power of Attorney Holder of Smt. Gulab Devi. Therefore, the plaintiff wrongly mentioned in the plaint that cause of action accrued on 20.10.2023. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the disputed land is agricultural land. So, revenue court had jurisdiction to try the suit. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the said will had previously been challenged by Smt. Gulab Devi, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by res judicata. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the application for issuance of succession certificate filed by the Smt. Gulab Devi was dismissed vide order dated 01.09.1979. So, the plaintiff had no right to file the suit because Smt. Gulab Devi herself had no right over the disputed property of late Kajod. So, Smt. Gulab Devi could not have transferred any right in the said property by way of Will. [2025:RJ-JP:32473] (4 of 6) [CR-102/2025] Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the plaintiff had paid deficit the court fees. So, the order dated

03.12.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments-:

1. Uma Devi Vs. Anand Kumar & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 703.

2. Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Harayana reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656.

3. Dilboo & Ors. Vs. Dhanraji & Ors. reported in (2000) 7 SCC 702.

4. Raghwendra Sharan Sigh Vs. Ram Prasanna Singh reported in (2020) 16 SCC 601.

5. Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366.

6. T. Arvindam Vs. T.V. Satyapal & Anr. reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467.

7. Prahlad Bagdi Vs. Gayatri Agrawal & ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine raj 124.

8. Leeladhar & Ors. Vs. Anwar Patel passed in civil revision petition No. 275/2011 decided on 08.03.2016.

9. Kokilabhen Vs. Gangaram Shakarabhai reported in MANU/GJ/2114/2021.

10. Annat Pal Singh Vs. Sumer Singh passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Revision No. 38/2010 decided on 22.12.2016. [2025:RJ-JP:32473] (5 of 6) [CR-102/2025] Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants and submits that cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on 20.10.2023. He also submits that while deciding the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only averments of the plaint are to be seen. He also submits that previously, the plaintiff had no right to challenge the will dated 08.08.1962 because he came to know about will executed by Smt. Gulab Devi dated 05.02.1990 on 20.10.2023 when son of Late Shri Ramkishore Sharma, Advocate had given said document. Therefore, the trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that objections raised by the defendants would be decided after evidence of the parties. So, the petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff had knowledge of will dated 08.08.1962 when Smt. Gulab Devi initiated criminal proceedings against the Ramnarayan and Hariram. During the investigation, the statement of the plaintiff-Omprakash was recorded when Smt. Gulab Devi had lodged the FIR. The contention of the plaintiff that cause of action accrued on

20.10.2023 is not true because he was present during the mutation proceedings as he was the Power of Attorney Holder of Smt. Gulab Devi before Tehsildar, Fagi. In the year 2024, by way of suit, he wanted to challenge the so-called will executed by Late Kajod in favour of Ramnarayan Hariram after a lapse of 62 years. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendants. [2025:RJ-JP:32473] (6 of 6) [CR-102/2025] Therefore, the petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendants is allowed; order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed being barred by limitation as well as non-accrual of cause of action. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. Tahir/73 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J