w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Guti Devi & Others v/s State of Rajasthan & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- DEVI CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U16000AP2011PTC076133

    Civil Writ Petition No. 7748 of 2011

    Decided On, 01 September 2011

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

    For the Petitioners:S.N. Bhatt, Advocate. For the Respondents: R2 to R5, Girish Joshi, K.C. Pitawat, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners, who are defendants in a revenue suit for declaration, partition, recovery of possession, perpetual injunction and correction of revenue record as filed by the plaintiffs (respondents Nos. 2 to 5 herein) and pending before the Assistant Collector & Sub-Divisional Officer, Luni, Jodhpur, seek to question the order dated 29.06.2011 (Annex.7) as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer ('the Board') in Revision Petition No.TA/675/2011/Jodhpur. By the said order dated 29.06.2011, the Board has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 12.01.2011 (Annex.5) as passed by the Trial Court rejecting an application moved under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the subject matter of this writ petition, when the contesting parties,2 i.e., the defendants-petitioners and the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 2 to 5 have appeared, while dispensing with service on the proforma respondents, the matter has been considered finally at this stage itself.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant background aspects are that the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 2 to 5 have filed the suit aforesaid seeking declaration of their rights in the land in dispute comprised in Khasra Nos. 415 and 416, admeasuring 39 bighas and 10 biswas and situated at village Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur with the submissions, inter alia, that the land in question was the khatedari land of their grandfather Shri Nenu Ram and they were having birthright therein. According to the plaintiffs, after the demise of Shri Nenu Ram, the land in question came to be wrongly recorded only in the name of their father Mangi Lal (defendant No. 15) and the other defendants illegally got the same transferred in their names and were intending to alienate the same further. The plaintiff have also claimed the reliefs of partition claiming the share each in the land in question; of recovery of possession; and of perpetual injunction for restraining the defendants from alienating the land in question or interfering with their rights.

4. The contesting defendants (petitioners herein) have filed the written statement denying the plaint allegations and stating that the land in question had been in the cultivatory possession of their ancestors. It is alleged that though the land3 in question came to be recorded in the name of Nenu Ram, the grandfather of the plaintiffs, but had never been in his possession. It has further been averred that after the death of Nenu Ram, the name of the defendant No.15 Mangi Lal (father of the plaintiffs) was recorded as the sole heir and then, he entered into a settlement with the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 on 05.11.1971. The defendants have also referred to the other litigations by and against the father of the plaintiffs wherein, according to the defendants, orders had been passed in their (defendants') favour. The contesting defendants have also asserted that the plaintiffs have no right in relation to the land in question and are not entitled to maintain the suit as filed. They have also denied accrual of any cause of action to the plaintiffs.

5. In the suit aforesaid, after framing of issues, the matter was posted for the plaintiffs' evidence but then, the defendants-petitioners proceeded to move an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending, inter alia, that the plaintiffs had no cause of action for maintaining the suit. It was contended that even if the plaint allegations were taken on their face value, the land in question was that of Nenu Ram, the grandfather of the plaintiffs; and, after his demise, it came vesting in the only son of Nenu Ram, i.e., Mangi Lal, the father of the plaintiffs. According to the defendants, when Mangi Lal was holding the land in question as the sole Khatedar, the plaintiffs had no claim therein during his life time. It was, thus, submitted that the plaint was required to be rejected outright. The plaintiffs filed a reply contesting the application so moved by the defendants-petitioners.

6. The learned Trial Court, by its order dated 12.09.2011, proceeded to reject the application so moved by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC essentially with the observations that issues had already been framed and the matter was pending for cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Board that has been decided by the impugned order dated 29.06.2011. The Board, though agreed with the submissions made by the petitioners that the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC could be moved at any stage but then, observed, inter alia, that for the purpose of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint averments were required to be looked into; and that the cause of action has been stated in paragraph 19 of the plaint. The Board also observed that the question of right of the plaintiffs in the land in question would depend on the question as to whether the same was ancestral or not; and such a question could be determined only after taking the evidence. The Board, thus, held that the suit could not be considered barred by any law at this stage; and in the result, rejected the revision petition. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that5 the settled proposition of law that in the property of grandfather, the grand-children have no right in the life time of their father does not call for any dispute and in this indisputable position, the suit as filed by the plaintiffs, respondents could only be said to be bereft of any cause of action. The learned counsel contends that the rejection of the application by the learned Trial Court only with reference to the stage of the proceedings had not been justified nor in the proper exercise of the jurisdiction. The learned counsel further contends that the Board though agreed that the application could be filed at any stage but then, made the unacceptable observations that non-accrual of cause of action could not be considered in an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The learned counsel yet further contends that the Board has rather proceeded to make the observations beyond the pleadings of the parties inasmuch as plaintiffs have not pleaded that the land in question had been the ancestral property; and the only pleading is to the effect that the land in question is the grandfather's property and the plaintiffs are claiming Khatedari rights therein. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents duly supports the order impugned and submits that no case for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is made out.

8. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions made and having examined the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any such error of6 jurisdiction as to call for interference in the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. May be that the learned Trial Court did not deal with the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on its merits and rejected the same with reference to the stage of the proceedings but then, in the totality of the circumstances of the case, where the issues had been framed and the matter had been posted for evidence, the learned Trial Court cannot be said to have committed a jurisdictional error in declining to consider the application at the given stage.

10. Moreover, and in any case, the Board has considered the application and even while agreeing with the petitioners that the same could be moved any stage, has observed that the cause of action for filing of the suit has been stated in paragraph 19 of the plaint; and that existence of alleged rights in the plaintiff would depend on the question regarding the nature of the property in dispute which could be determined only after taking evidence.

11. The Board has, of course, made the observations that the rights of the plaintiffs would depend on determination of the question as to whether the property was an ancestral or not but such observations are required to be viewed in the context of the fact that the Board was only dealing with a revision petition in regard to the order passed in rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; and looking to the frame of the suit, the Board has only indicated the7 questions likely to arise for determination. As to what kind of question would, in fact, be taken up for determination and whether the plaintiffs would be entitled for the prayed relief or not, are all the matters for consideration of the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage but, in the ultimate analysis, for the case not directly falling within the parameters of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, rejection of the application moved by the petitioners cannot be said be suffering from any jurisdiction error.

12. This being a petition essentially under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the orders impugned not suffering from any jurisdiction error, this Court finds no reason to enter into a minute analysis of the pleadings. This much is clear that the Board had the jurisdiction to pass the order impugned and has exercised its jurisdiction after considering the submissions of the parties and after examining the relevant pleadings. The errors or shortcoming sought to be indicated in the order impunged, do not make out a case for interference by this Court in the supervisory jurisdiction.

13. However, it needs to be observed that this Court is declining to interfere in the matter only for it being not within the scope of the interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and else, the observations, whether made by the learned Trial Court in its order dated 12.01.2011 or by the Board in its order dated 29.06.2011 shall be read as relevant only for the purpose of consideration of the8 application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and not beyond.

14. Before concluding, yet another aspect of the matter needs to be commented upon. During the course of hearing of this petition, in response to the query made by the Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed for perusal the memo of issues framed by the learned Trial Court; and on a perusal thereof, this Court has expressed reservations on the nature of the issues framed because they refer only and only to the different facets of the reliefs claimed and nothing specific has been incorporated on the disputed propositions of law and facts, as arising from the pleadings of the parties. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 2 to 5 has, however, pointed out that an application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC has indeed been moved by the petitioners that has already been considered by the learned Trial Court and the matter is p

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

osted for orders on the said application on 16.09.2011. In the given set of facts and circumstances, it appears appropriate to observe that the learned Trial Court would be expected to frame proper issues in the matter so as to put the parties specifically to notice on the questions likely to be considered and adjudicated. The learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the issues of law as arising for consideration may be ordered to be decided as preliminary issues. The submissions so made have only been noted and no comments in that regard appear requisite because as at present, the matter is being9 considered by the Trial Court on the application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC. As to what course is to be adopted thereafter is definitely for the learned Trial Court to consider in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, however, it appears appropriate and hence, is observed that if any other application is moved by either of the parties for further modification, amendment or addition in the issues, the same may also be given due consideration by the learned Trial Court. With and subject to the observations foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

21-07-2020 Branch Manager, Sahara India Dumraon Branch Buxar Bihar Versus Raj Kumari Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-07-2020 Kamlesh Devi & Others Versus Bhola Nath & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
16-07-2020 Raksha Devi Vedrsus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
14-07-2020 M/s. Sanwaliya Tractor Sales & Service, Rajasthan & Others Versus Bhagwati Devi Bhatt & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-07-2020 B.A.S. Devi Prasad Versus The Telangana Co-operative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar High Court of for the State of Telangana
30-06-2020 National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Jaipur & Others Versus Manju Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-06-2020 Bhagwati Devi Versus Suritram (Dead) & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
18-06-2020 Dr. Manoj Kr. Bhagat Versus Masomat Kanchan Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2020 Most. Dhanwanti Devi & Others Versus Sanjharo Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
15-06-2020 Samri Devi Shaw Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi Versus Aasha Devi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 Munni Devi & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-06-2020 Sheelender Kumar Gupta & Another Versus Mahaviri Devi (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. High Court of Delhi
08-06-2020 Geeta Devi Versus Om Prakash & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
02-06-2020 Renu Devi & Another Versus State of Punjab & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
28-05-2020 Most. Ahilya Devi @ Ahilya Devi Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
28-05-2020 Manju Devi Versus Board of Revenue Allahabad & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
21-05-2020 Savitri Devi & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
20-05-2020 Aasha Devi Versus Bihar State Food & Civil Supply Corporation Ltd through its Managing Director, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-05-2020 Priyambada Devi Birla & Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus Arvind Kumar Newar & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-05-2020 Inder Singh Versus Savitri Devi High Court of Delhi
29-04-2020 Gopi Chand Versus Geeta Devi & Others High Court of Delhi
15-04-2020 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus Mohani Devi & Another Supreme Court of India
08-04-2020 Shyama Devi Versus Manju Shukla & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
24-03-2020 Babu Lal & Others Versus Para Devi & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
23-03-2020 Damyanti Devi Versus Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Prem Devi Versus Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-03-2020 Satya Devi Versus State of HP & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
19-03-2020 Uma Devi Versus The State Govt of NCT of Delhi High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 Surendra Kumar Versus Phulwanti Devi High Court of Rajasthan
18-03-2020 United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Mora Devi High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
18-03-2020 Dr. Nirmala Devi, Obstetrician & Gynecologist, Assitant Professor Versus Chandrakanta National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 Khushboo Devi Versus Indranil Ray Chowdhury & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
10-03-2020 G. Uma Devi & Another Versus M. Krishnamurthy Reddiar & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 The Branch Manager, M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Versus Jayanti Devi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
06-03-2020 M/s Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. Versus S. Ambika Devi & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Sakuntala Devi Versus Dr. Md. Mumtaz Alam & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-03-2020 M. Vanaja Versus M. Sarla Devi (Dead) Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Poonam Devi & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Tulsa Devi Nirola & Others Versus Radha Nirola & Others Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Ambika Singh (since deceased) represented by legal representatives & Others Versus Mosomat Sohagi Devi (since deceased) represented by her legal heirs & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-03-2020 Saraswati Devi Versus Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Dhanbad & Others High Court of Jharkhand
28-02-2020 Sandhya Devi @ Sandhya Goyal Versus State High Court of Delhi
28-02-2020 Devi & Another Versus The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 Tvl. Trust Metal, Rep. by its Proprietrix Bhagwanti Devi Versus Assistant Commissioner (CT), Moore Market (South) Assessment Circle High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-02-2020 M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai Versus Karmi Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 Devi Versus Narayanan @ Alagappan & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-02-2020 Shyam Sundar Dhal Versus Sharada Devi Bubna & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
18-02-2020 Golkonda Uma Devi Versus Enti Manjula & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
18-02-2020 ITC Limited, Chennai, Rep. by its Constituted Attorney, V.M. Rajasekharan Versus Shree Devi Match Industries, Gudiyattam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 Sujatha Devi Akondi & Others Versus M/s. Safeway InfraRep By Its Managing Partner Ivsn Raju, Hyderabad & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Mala Devi Versus State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Medical & Health Lko. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Ratna Devi Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-02-2020 Manju Devi Versus State of Bihar High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-02-2020 Kiran Devi Agrawal & Others Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-02-2020 A. Sakunthala Devi Versus The Registrar General, High Court, Madras & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Vidya Devi & Another Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, To the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
30-01-2020 Urmila Devi & Others Versus Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
28-01-2020 Shakuntala Devi Jan Kalyan Samiti Through Secy. & Others Versus State of U.P. Through Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
28-01-2020 Kirpal Singh & Others Versus Kamla Devi & Others Supreme Court of India
28-01-2020 Kashmira Devi Versus State of Uttarakhand & Others Supreme Court of India
24-01-2020 Manokamini Devi Versus Ashok Kumar High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
23-01-2020 C. Sarojini Devi Versus The Director of Local Fund Audits, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 K.S. Rema Devi, Accountant, Azhoor-Muttappalam Service Co-Operative Bank, Thiruvananthapuram Versus The Kerala Co-Operative Service Examination Board, Represented by Its Secretary, Thiruvannathapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
20-01-2020 Sumitra Devi (Female) Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-01-2020 State of AP Versus Devi Engineering & Construction High Court of Andhra Pradesh
17-01-2020 Neelam Devi Versus State of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna
17-01-2020 Shunti Devi Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
16-01-2020 Guriya Devi Versus State of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna
14-01-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. Versus Satya Devi & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
10-01-2020 In Goods of Late Sandhaya Devi Versus ----------- High Court of Judicature at Patna
09-01-2020 Deedar Devi Versus Jhabarmal Sheshma High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
08-01-2020 Vidya Devi Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
08-01-2020 J. Nirmala Devi & Others Versus The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Vijayawada-Dharmapuri Pipeline project, Rep., by its General Manager, Mumbai & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
07-01-2020 Usha Devi Versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
07-01-2020 Rajesh Sakuja Versus Asha Devi Chouhan & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
07-01-2020 J.S. Sharma & Sons Versus Shiv Devi Meena High Court of Delhi
06-01-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Munni Devi & Others High Court of Delhi
06-01-2020 The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary (Revenue), Government of Tripura, Agartala & Others VersusBibhu Kumari Devi & Others High Court of Tripura
06-01-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Munni Devi & Others High Court of Delhi
03-01-2020 Shyamala Devi Versus The Regional Manager, Regional Office, State Bank of India, Region – IV, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 B.K. Usha Devi & Others V/S Punjab National Bank by its General Manager Head Office, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-01-2020 Nandini Devi Versus District Registrar, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-12-2019 Sheela Devi Versus State of H.P. & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-12-2019 Milap Devi Jain & Others Versus Bank of Baroda & Others Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad
20-12-2019 Anjali Devi & Others Versus Govindu & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2019 Jatinder Singh Versus Suman Devi High Court of Punjab and Haryana
16-12-2019 New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Narmada Devi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
16-12-2019 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Srimati Devi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
16-12-2019 Urmila Devi & Others Versus Superintendent of Police & Others High Court of Jharkhand
12-12-2019 Kalan Devi Versus Munshi Ram High Court of Himachal Pradesh
11-12-2019 Arti Devi Versus Jawaharlal Nehru University High Court of Delhi
11-12-2019 Puspalata Devi Versus Union of India, Represented by the General Manager (P), Maligaon, Guwahati & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
09-12-2019 Pushpa Devi Versus Hanuman Ram High Court of Rajasthan
09-12-2019 Surya Prakash & Another Versus Renuka Devi & Another High Court of Karnataka
05-12-2019 Laxmi Devi Versus Suresh Mendiratta High Court of Delhi
04-12-2019 Union of India & Others Versus Navindra Devi Supreme Court of India
03-12-2019 Krishna Devi & Others Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
27-11-2019 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Versus Sunita Devi Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula
21-11-2019 B. Booma Devi & Others Versus The District Collector, Kancheepuram District & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras