School, Near Chatriyon, Amer, District Jaipur v. Smt. Gayatri Sharma W/o Shri Bhagwan Sahai D/o Shri

Judgment

1. Smt. Gayatri Sharma W/o Shri Bhagwan Sahai D/o Shri Deen Dayal Tiwari, R/o 71/105, Near Kendriya Vidhyalaya No. 5, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

2. Shri Deen Dayal Tiwari S/o Shri Gopal Sahai, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Ward No. 24, Village Mahal, Post Jagatpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. (Deceased And Deleted)

Shri Ashok Tiwari S/o Shri Deen Dayal Tiwari, Aged About 45 Years, R/o The Bank Of Rajasthan, Pratap Chowk, Baran, District Baran (Rajasthan).

4. Shri Raj Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Deen Dayal Tiwari, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Plot No. 31, Shalimar Marg Vistar, Behind Heerapura Power House, 80 Feet Road, Near Rishab Public School, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. 5/1. 5/2. Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain, Shri Jitendra Kumar Jain, 5/3. Shri Pawan Kumar, Sons Of Shri Madan Lal Jain, R/o Banarsi Das Bhawan, Chaura Rasta, On The Shop No. 344-345, Jaipur.

6. Shankar Bhawan Grah Nirman Shakar Samiti Ltd, Through Administrator, Sub Registrar Cooperative Society, Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

7. Hasanpura Grah Nirman Shakar Samiti Ltd., Through Chairman/secretary, R/o Vishwafame Chamber, Before Ajmer Puliya, Hathroi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

8. Court Of Authorized Officer Zone 9, Jaipur Development Authority Address Ram Kishore Vyas Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:16330] (2 of 8) [CFA-710/2012] Connected With S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 705/2012 ----Respondents Smt Gayatri Sharma W/o Shri Bhagwan Sahai D/o Shri Deen Dayal Tiwari, Resident Of 71/105, Near Central School No., Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.) Versus ----Appellant

1. Shri Deen Dayal Tiwari S/o Late Shri Gopal Sahai, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Ward No.24, Village Mehal, Post Jagatpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.) (Died During Pendency Of Appeal).

2. Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Deen Dayal Tiwari, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of The Bank Of Rajasthan, Pratap Chowk, Baran, Distt. Baran (Raj.)

3. Shri Raj Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Deen Dayal Tiwari, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 31, Shalimar Marg Vistar, Behind Heerapura Power House, 80 Feet Road, Near Rishabh School Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

4. Smt. Krishna Sharma W/o Shri Krishna Kumar Sharma D/o Shri Deen Dayal Tiwari, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 6/301, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017.

5. Smt. Renu W/o Suresh Saini D/o Deen Dayal Tiwari, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Ward No.9, Mehendi Ka Baas, Near Primary School, Near Chatriyon, Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.)

6. Madan Lal Jain (Since Deceased), Through Legal Representatives. 6/1. Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain S/o Madan Lal Jain, Resident Of Banarasi Das Bhawan Choura Rasta, Above Shop No. 344-345, Jaipur (Raj.) (Since Deceased). 6/1/1. Sumit Jain S/o Late Shri Mahendra Kumar, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Banarasi Das Bhawan Choura Rasta, Shop No. 344-345, Jaipur (Raj.) 6/2. Shri Jitendra Kumar Jain S/o Madan Lal Jain, Resident Of Banarasi Das Bhawan Choura Rasta, Above Shop No. 344- 345, Jaipur (Raj.) 6/3. Shri Pawan Kumar S/o Madan Lal Jain, Resident Of [2025:RJ-JP:16330] (3 of 8) [CFA-710/2012] Banarasi Das Bhawan Choura Rasta, Above Shop No. 344- 345, Jaipur (Raj.) (Since Deceased) 6/3/1. Sanjeev Jain S/o Late Shri Pawan Kumar Jain, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Banarasi Das Bhawan Choura Rasta, Shop No. 344-345, Jaipur (Raj.)

7. Shankar Bhawan Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti Ltd., Through Administrator, Deputy Registrar Sehkari Samiti, Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur (Raj.)

8. Hasanpura Garh Nirman Sehkari Samiti Ltd., Through President/secretary, Before Vishwa Fem Chamber, Ajmer Puliya, Hathroi, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

9. Learned Court Of Authorized Officer, Zone-9, Jaipur Development Authority, Ramkishore Vyas Bhawan, Jln Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) For Respondent(s) : Mr. N K Maloo, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Harsh Pratap Singh, Adv. & Mr. Vishnu Bohra, Adv. Mr. T C Sharma, Adv. with Mr. Uddeshya Vijaywargia, Adv. Mr. R K Daga, Adv. with Mr. R S Chouhan, Adv. : Mr. Palash Srivastav, Adv. Mr. Aatish Jain, Adv. Mr. Nawal Kishore Saini, Adv. for Mr. S.N. Kumawat, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Tiwari, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA DATE OF JUDGMENT 21/04/2025 Judgment REPORTABLE With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeals are being decided by this common judgment. These appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated

12.10.2012 passed by Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in civil suit No. [2025:RJ-JP:16330] (4 of 8) [CFA-710/2012] 68/2006 (56/2006), whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-Smt. Gayatri Devi (for short ‘the plaintiff’) for partition as well as permanent injunction was partly allowed in her favour and preliminary decree was passed. Brief facts of the case are that the eldest daughter of Deen Dayal i.e. Smt. Gayatri Sharma filed a civil suit for partition and permanent injunction against the defendants about the ancestral property. The pedigree is showing the relationship of parties in para No. 1 of the plaint. It was further mentioned in the para 2 of the plaint that the properties left by plaintiff’s grand father Late Shri Gopal Sahai son of Shri Raghu Nath Sahai were joint immovable properties situated in heart of Jaipur City Chokri i.e. Nohra House Muncipal No.1766 Vishvesharji Sauthli Walon Ka Rasta, inside Deewan Bhagchandra Ki Gali, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur and agricultural land situated in Tehsil-Sanganer, Village Mahal Patwar Jagatpura, Jaipur bearing old khasra No. 82 & new khasra No. 454 admeasuring 0.20 hectare, khasra No. 455 admeasuring

3.01 hectare, khasra No. 456 admeasuring 0.01 hectare Gair Mumkin Chah, Khasra No. 457 admeasuring 3.36 hectare total admeasuring 6.58 hectare. It was also mentioned that said property was undivided and the plaintiff was having 1/6th share therein. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had filed joint written statement and defendant No. 3 filed separate written statement and mentioned father and brothers of the plaintiff alleged their rights based therein on the customary adoptions, Will and mutation. It was also mentioned that they have sold the property by way of one agreement in favour of defendant No. 8 i.e. Hasanpura Grah [2025:RJ-JP:16330] (5 of 8) [CFA-710/2012] Nirman Sahkari Samiti. Prior to this suit, disputed property was mutually partitioned. Plaintiff received the amount of her share at the time of marriage, so, she had no right to file the present suit. Defendant No. 8 also filed written statement and mentioned that Hasanpura Samiti had purchased the property by way of one agreement and allotted the plot to their members and gave possession to them also. It was also mentioned that present suit is related to agricultural land. So, civil court had no jurisdiction to try it. Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 also filed their written statement and claimed 1/6th share alongwith plaintiff in the disputed property. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed following issues-: 1- vk;k oknuh dk okn fo:) izfroknh la[;k&1 rk 5 ckcr~ rdklek fMØh fd;k tkdj okn i= ds en la[;k 2 d o 2 [k esa of.kZr lEifRr esa 1@6 Hkkx ?kksf’kr fd;k tkos ,oa ckbZ ehV~l ,.M ckmUM~l lEifRr dk rdklek djk;k tk;s\ 2- vk;k oknuh fookfnr lEifRr esa ls 1@6 fgLls dk okLrfod dCtk fnyk;k tkos rFkk okn i= dh en la[;k 2 d ,oa 2 [k esa of.kZr lEifRr ls gksus okyh vk; esa ls Hkh 1@6 fgLlk fnyok;k tkos\ 3- vk;k oknuh bl vk/kkj ij LFkkbZ fu’ks/kkKk izkIr djus dh vf/kdkj.kh gS fd okn i= ds en la[;k 2 d ,oa 2 [k esa of.kZr lEifRr dks rk QSlyk okn fdlh Hkh izdkj ls gLrkUrfjr ugha djs ;fn mlesa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk fuekZ.k o dk;Z djs\ 4- vk;k ekuuh; U;k;ky; dks okn dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr ugha gS\ [2025:RJ-JP:16330] (6 of 8) [CFA-710/2012] 5- vk;k okn i= ds en ua- 2 ¼d½ esa of.kZr Hkwfe ljdkj dh [kkrsnkjh esa gS] blfy, okn drbZ pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 6- vk;k oknuh us /kkjk 90&ch ds rgr ikfjr vkns”k ls pqukSrh ugha nh blfy, okn drbZ pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 7- vk;k oknuh us U;k;”kqYd de vnk dh gS\ 8- vk;k okn i= ds en ua- 2 ¼d½ esa of.kZr lEifRr dk foHkktu iwoZ esa gks pqdk gS blfy, okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 9- vk;k izfroknh ua- 2 o 3 dks Jherh egrkc nsoh ds vf/kdkj vUrfjr gks pqds gSa\ 10- vk;k izfroknh ua- 4 o 5 okn i= ds en ua- 2d o 2 [k esa 1@6&1@6 fgLlk o dCtk izkIr djus dh vf/kdkj.kh gSa\ 11- vk;k okn i= ds en ua- 2 ¼[k½ esa of.kZr d`f’k Hkwfe eq”rdkZ lEifRr ugha gSA blfy, okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 12- vk;k izfroknh ua- 8 us [kljk ua- 45 esa ls 80 gsDVs;j [kljk ua- 457 dh 3-36 gSDVs;j Hkwfe Jherh ewyh nsoh] lhrkjke] Jherh esgrkc nsoh ls tfj;s bdjkjukek Ø; dj vius lnL;ksa dks vkoaVu dj dCtk ns fn;k gS] blfy, okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 13- vk;k izfroknh la[;k& 8 dks dfFkr bdjkjukes ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr Hkwfe esa dksbZ LokfeRo dk vf/kdkj izkIr gksrk gS\ 14- vuqrks’k\ Learned Sr. counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents jointly submit that trial Court had committed an error in deciding the issue No. 4 that civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter relating to agricultural land. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents also submit that present suit was a [2025:RJ-JP:16330] (7 of 8) [CFA-710/2012] composite suit. There is no dispute with regard to share between the parties. It is an admitted position that disputed agricultural land belongs to the late Gopal Sahai. Legal heirs of the Deen Dayal had equal share in the disputed property. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents also submit that on account of composite suit the trial Court had to decide the share of the parties with regard to agricultural land. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents further submits that as per the Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as well as the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and other tenancies Law, the trial Court had to draw the preliminary decree with regard to agricultural land and direct the District Collector or any other Gazetted officer subordinate to District Collector who may be deputed by him on his behalf for partition of the suit property in accordance with Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as well as Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents also submits that during the pendency of this appeal Deen Dayal has died. So, share of legal heirs of Deen Dayal should be modified to 1/5th instead of 1/6th. They have prayed to modify the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012 passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed the reliance upon the judgment passed in case of Janki Devi Vs. Mani Ram & Ors. in civil regular first appeal No. 106/90 decided on

11.02.2000. [2025:RJ-JP:16330] (8 of 8) [CFA-710/2012] I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents. It is an admitted position that present suit filed by Smt. Gayatri Sharma with regard to partition and permanent injunction of the immovable property as well as agricultural land as mentioned in para 2 of the plaint. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012 committed an error while deciding the issue No. 4 and gave liberty to the appellants as well as respondents to file partition suit before the revenue Court. In my considered opinion, trial Court should have decided the shares of the parties with regard to agricultural land. Appellants as well as respondents, who are legal heirs of the Deen Dayal, are entitled to get 1/5th share in the property which is mentioned in para 2 of the plaint. Accordingly, both the appeals are partly allowed and the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2012 passed by the trial Court is modified and trial Court is directed to send the matter for division of the agricultural land to the District Collector, Jaipur with a direction to partition the property as 1/5th share between the legal heirs of the Deen Dayal as per the Rajasthan Tenancy Act or other tenancies Law as may be applicable to the agricultural land and thereafter to proceed in the matter for preparation of final decree, in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/105-106