M/s Coral Associates, Through Partner Shri Deepak Rajwanshi v. Chhitar Lal S/o

Judgment

1. Chhitar Lal S/o Shri Ganpat, Resident Of Village Deeppura, At Present Resident Of Govind Nagar, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota

Laxmi Narayan S/o Shri Bala @ Baloo Ram, Resident Of Rajnagar, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota

3. Chandra Prakash S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan, Resident Of Village Rajnagar, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota

4. Nand Kishore S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan, Resident Of Village Rajnagar, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota

5. Banwari Lal S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan, Resident Of Village Rajnagar, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota

6. Birdhi Lal S/o Narayan, Resident Of Village Rajnagar, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota

7. Gajanand S/o Late Narayan, Resident Of Village Rajnagar, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota

8. Gopal S/o Late Narayan, Resident Of Village Rajnagar, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota

9. Sundar Bai Widow Wife Of Shri Mohan, Resident Of Village Rajnagar, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota

10. Meghraj S/o Late Mohan, Resident Of Village Rajnagar, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota

11. Chaturbhuj S/o Late Mohan, Resident Of Village Rajnagar, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota

12. Dhanraj S/o Late Mohan, Resident Of Village Rajnagar, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota

13. Nagar Vikas Nyas, Kota, Jariye Sachiv, Nagar Vikas Nyas, Kota ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:20554] (2 of 4) [CR-275/2019] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sharma, Adv. on behalf of Mr. P. S. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anitesh Rana, Adv. Mr. Palash Gupta, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 16/05/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.12 (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 read with Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC,1908 against the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the Civil Judge, (South) Kota (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.360/2019, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondent No.1-plaintiff(for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendant as well as proforma defendant Nos.2 to 13. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC before the trial court to the effect that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable because without seeking declaration, injunction can not be granted. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the plaintiff had not declared himself as Khatedar of the disputed land, so without getting declaration of khatedari rights, suit was not [2025:RJ-JP:20554] (3 of 4) [CR-275/2019] maintainable but the trial court vide order dated 16.10.2019 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that it is an admitted position that the disputed land was in the name of Shri Madholal and after his death, said disputed land was entered in the name of Dhaka Bai, who was the mother of the plaintiff. Name of Dhaka Bai was deleted from Jamabandi on 05.04.1945. The disputed land was sold to the defendant and the same was converted into residential land. Patta was issued to the various persons. No cause of action accrued to the plaintiff because without getting declared as a Khatedar, suit was not maintainable but the trial court vide order dated 16.10.2019 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed, order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anathula Sudhakar V/s. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs. & Ors. reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that the plaintiff is son of Dhaka Bai and after the death of Madho Lal, land vested in his sons. After the death of Shree Krishan, land was entered in the name of Ganpati, who was the mother of Dhaka Bai. Land was entered in the name of Dhaka Bai on 31.01.1937 but her name was wrongly deleted from Jamabandi. She was in possession of the disputed land. Thus, the plaintiff is owner of the disputed land on account of son of Dhaka Bai. So, the trial court [2025:RJ-JP:20554] (4 of 4) [CR-275/2019] vide order dated 16.10.2019 while dismissing the application filed by the defendant, rightly came to the conclusion that question of cause of action as well as the title, would be decided after evidence of the parties. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that name of Dhaka Bai was deleted from the mutation entry on 05.04.1945 and the disputed land was sold to the defendant and the same was converted into residential land. Patta was issued to the various persons. The plaintiff had not sought the relief of declaration as a Khatedar of the disputed land. So, in my considered opinion, without getting declared the khatedari rights, the plaintiff had no right to file the present suit. So no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing the suit. The trial court vide order dated 16.10.2019 has committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. So, the petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. The revision petition filed by the defendant is allowed. The order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the trial court is set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed for want of cause of action. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed of. Gourav/109 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J