Kasba Shrimadhopur, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar v. Prabhudayal Kasera Charitable Trust, Shrimadhopur

Judgment

1. Prabhudayal Kasera Charitable Trust, Shrimadhopur District Sikar (Raj.) Through Secretary, Deendayal Kasera S/o Late Shri Prabhudayal Kasera, Aged 68 Years, R/o

Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.) ….Respondent/Plaintiff

2. Kedarnath S/o Late Shri Gulkand, R/o Shrimadhopur, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.) At Present R/o B-7/8, Kabir Complex, Near Don B.o., S.c.o. School, Makarpura Road, Barodara (Gujrat)

3. Kedarnath S/o Late Gulkand, R/o Shrimadhopur, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.) At Present R/o B-7/8, Kabir Comples, Near Don B.o., S.c.o. School, Makarpura Road, Barodara (Gujarat) Through Power Of Attorney Mangalchand Kasera, Aged 44 Years, S/o Shri Sitaram Kasera, R/o Ward No. 10 Sikar Bazar, Kasba Shrimadhopur, Tehsil Shrimadhopur District Sikar.

4. Sushil Kumar S/o Shri Bhagwandas, Aged About 58 Years, R/o B.f-50, Near Harinagar Depot, Janakpur B-1, West Delhi.

5. Mangal Chand @ Mangal Chand Kasera, Aged About 44 Years, S/o Shri Sitaram Alias Sitaram Kasera R/o Ward No. 10 Sikar Bazar, Kasba Shrimadhopur, Tehsil Shrimadhopur District Sikar.

6. Gorav Kasera S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Mohalla Halwaeeyo Ka, Kasba Shrimadhopur, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar At Present District Neemkathana.

7. Sub-Registrar, Shrimadhopur, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar.

8. Landholder State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar, Shrimadhopur, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District - Sikar. (Raj.) [2025:RJ-JP:16845] (2 of 5) [CR-106/2025] ---Proforma-Respondents/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, Adv. with Mr. Devanshu Saini, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 24/04/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.02/2025 titled as “Prabhudayal Kasera Charitable Trust V/s. Kedarnath & Ors.”, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 73 and 74 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondent No.1/Plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for declaration of registered sale deed dated 13.12.2014 as null and void and permanent injunction against the defendants in which the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 73 and 74 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that in the suit filed by the plaintiff, it was mentioned that the said property is a trust property, therefore, as per the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try it. [2025:RJ-JP:16845] (3 of 5) [CR-106/2025] Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the plaintiff wanted to declare the so-called sale deed dated

13.12.2024 as null and void. The plaintiff had not sought any relief regarding cancellation of the sale deed dated 13.12.2024. So, the Revenue Court has exclusive jurisdiction regarding declaration of the sale deed as null and void. So, the trial court has committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 73 and 74 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. So, the present petition filed by the defendant be allowed and the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the trial court be set-aside. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) Pyarelal V/s Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) through Natural Guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania & Ors. Reported in 2019 SC 2377; (2) Ratan Lal & Ors. V/s. Shri Kanna Ji Dangi & Ors. In S. B. Civil First Appeal No.258/2013 decided on 19.04.2023; (3) Hasti Cement Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Charan & Ors. In S. B. Civil Revision No.137/2015 decided on 07.03.2018. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that the disputed property is a trust property which is mentioned in Annexure-1 and it was registered in Devasthan Department, Jaipur. The defendant had sold his share in the said property despite knowledge of the fact that it was a trust property. So, the plaintiff wanted to declare the so-called sale deed dated [2025:RJ-JP:16845] (4 of 5) [CR-106/2025]

13.12.2024 as null and void because the sale deed was void ab initio. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff had not sought any relief under Rajasthan Public Trust Act and only the civil court has power to declare the so-called sale deed dated 13.12.2024 as null and void. So, the trial court vide order dated 28.03.2025 rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Sharda Devi (Smt.) V/s Iqbal Singh & Ors. Reported in 2015(2) DNJ (Raj.) 503; (2) Sita Ram Das V/s Shri Chaturbhuj Nathji Mandir(22) in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No.599/1982 decided on 20.01.1988; (3) Rasul Khan V/s Gabruddin & Ors. Reported in 2015(2) CCC 547 (Raj.). (4) Sanganer Agro & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Janki Devi & Ors. Reported in 2013(1) DNJ (Raj.) 358; (5) Rajendra Kumar Sharma V/s. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. In S. B. Civil Revision Petition No.19/2024 decided on 20.03.2024. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. As per contention of the defendant, the disputed property is a trust property which is mentioned in Annexure-1 and it was registered in Devasthan Department, Jaipur. The defendant had sold his share in the trust property. So, the plaintiff wanted to [2025:RJ-JP:16845] (5 of 5) [CR-106/2025] declare the so called sale deed dated 13.12.2024 as null and void. The plaintiff had not sought any relief under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. The Civil Court has only power to declare the so-called sale deed dated 13.12.2024 as null and void. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 73 and 74 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed. Gourav/16 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J