Phoolchand v. Shekhawati Sikshan Sansthan & Ors on 18 Jul 2025

Judgment

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.

7. Deputy Registrar, Laxmangarh, District Sikar. 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 [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 [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. [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 [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. Tahir/100 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J