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



Neetu & Another v/s Shanti Devi & Others


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

Company & Directors' Information:- SHANTI CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2007PLC166685

Company & Directors' Information:- SHANTI PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U55101OR1983PTC001169

Company & Directors' Information:- SHANTI INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1980PTC010679

    Civil Writ Petition No. 2467 of 2011

    Decided On, 23 March 2011

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

    For the Petitioners:I.R. Choudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: ----------



Judgment Text

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 23.2.2011 (Annexure-6) passed by Addl. District Judge, Sojat City, District Pali in Civil Original Case No. 4/2008.

3. As per facts of the case, a suit was filed by the, plaintiffs petitioners for partition and permanent injunction against the defendants respondents in respect of house and shop situated at the place which is mentioned in paras I and 2 of the writ petition. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that after filing suit, a reply was filed and trial Court framed following issues ;

"LANGUAGE"

4. Thereafter, learned trial Court proceeded to decide the issue No. 3 first and for that purpose, opportunity to lead evidence was given to the respondents to prove the said issue in which the statement of PW-1 Nitu, PW-2 Manju, PW-3 Ghevar Ram and PW-4 Dhaglaram were recorded and from the side of respondents, the statement of DW-1 Jewat Ram was recorded.

5. After recording the evidence for the purpose of deciding issue No. 3, learned trial Court finally heard the arguments and finally decided the issue No. 3 vide impugned order dated 23.2.2011 whereby learned trial Court passed an order that in this matter Section 35(2) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act is not applicable and further held that in this case it is not proved that the plaintiffs petitioners are in possession. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the finding of learned trial Court submits that finding of learned trial Court is totally erroneous because it is settled law that for applicability of Section 35(1) of the Act it has to be proved in a suit for partition that plaintiffs were excluded from the possession of the property. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the order impugned is in contravention of the adjudication made by Hon'ble Supreme Court and for the said purpose he has invited my attention towards the judgments reported in AIR 1980 SC 961, AIR 1978 SC 1601 and recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sri Ramakrishna Mutt Rep. By Manager v. M. Maheswaran & Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 8864/2010 arising out of SLP (C) No. 5301/2007) decided on 8.10.2010. These judgments are in support of the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that even if a person is not in actual possession then also it will not be the conclusion that he is not in possession. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if the plaintiffs petitioners are married and living in their in-laws house then it cannot be presumed that they are not in possession, so also there is evidence on record to show that they are living at the place, therefore, learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in right perspective.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the finding of learned trial Court with regard to the fall that the plaintiffs petitioners are not in possession is totally erroneous because DW-1 in his statement stated that rent was also paid to Neetu and Manju, therefore, the finding of learned trial Court is not proper. It is also submitted that as per the statement of DW-1, it is proved that plaintiffs petitioners are in possession of the property in question, therefore, the finding given by learned trial Court may be quashed.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the order impugned. Learned trial Court after taking evidence on issue No. 3 appreciated the oral evidence adduced by both the parties and came to the conclusion that plaintiffs petitioners are not in possession of the property in question. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. Recently Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has laid down certain para- meters upon which the High Courts can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. I have considered the argument made by learned counsel for the petitioners and finding of learned trial Court in the light of parameters laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforesaid judgment.

10. In paras 48 and 49 of the aforesaid judgment, following adjudication has been made by Hon'ble Supreme Court :

"48. The jurisdiction under Article 226 normally is exercised where a party is affected but power under Article 227 can be exercised by the High Court suo motu as a custodian of justice. In fact, the power under Article 226 is exercised in favour of persons or citizens for vindication of their fundamental rights or other statutory rights. jurisdiction under Article 227 is exercised by the High Court for vindication of its position as the highest judicial authority in the State. In certain cases where there is infringement of fundamental right, the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution can be claimed ex-debito justitiae or as a matter of right. But in cases where the High Court exercises its jurisdiction under Article 227, such exercise is entirely discretionary and no person can claim it as a matter of right. From an order of a Single judge passed under Article 226, a Letters Patent Appeal or an intra Court Appeal is maintainable. But no such appeal is maintainable from an order passed by a Single Judge of a High Court in exercise of power under Article 227. In almost all High Courts, rules have been framed for regulating the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. No such rule appears to have been framed for exercise of High Court's power under Article 227 possibly to keep such exercise entirely in the domain of the discretion of High Court.

49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution maybe formulated:

(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different.

(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above.

(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of Tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or Tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.

(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Waryam Singh (supra) and the principles in Waryam Singh (supra) have been repeatedly followed by subsequent Constitution Benches and various other decisions of this Court.

(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh (supra), followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, 'within the bounds of their authority'. (f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such Tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. (g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) and (1), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

(h) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the Tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised.

(i) High Court's power of superintendence under Article 227 cannot be curtailed by any statute. It has been declared a part of the basic structure of the Constitution by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 and therefore abridgement by a Constitutional amendment is also very doubtful.

(j) It may be true that a statutory amendment of a rather cognate provision, like Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 does not and cannot cut down the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227. At the same time, it must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227.

(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on equitable principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu.

(1) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this Article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory.

(m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court.

(n) This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline pointed out above.

(o) An improper and a frequent exe

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rcise of this power will be counter- productive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality." 11. In this case, upon perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that before adjudicating issue No. 3, the evidence was taken by the trial Court and after taking into consideration entire facts and evidence, the conclusion has been given by learned trial Court that valuation of the house property in question is 210,00,000/- and valuation of shop in question is Rs. 4,00,000/- upon which, Court fee is payable. In my opinion, re-appreciation of the evidence is not permissible under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, issue No. 3 has been decided on the basis of the fact that the plaintiffs petitioners are married and they are living in their in-laws house, therefore, it cannot be said that they are in possession of the property in question. 12. In this view of the matter, the case of the petitioners does not fall within the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra) for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby 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
20-07-2020 M/s Shanti Enggicon Private Limited Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
16-07-2020 Raksha Devi Vedrsus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
16-07-2020 Kamlesh Devi & Others Versus Bhola Nath & Others 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
26-06-2020 Shanti Subba & Others Versus Jashang Subba High Court of Sikkim
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 Shanti Bhatt & Others Versus Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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 Shanti Chandra Pal & Another Versus State of West Bengal High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
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 Dr. Penumala Viswa Shanti Versus The Station House Officer High Court of for the State of Telangana
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 Urmila Devi & Others Versus Superintendent of Police & Others High Court of Jharkhand
16-12-2019 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Srimati Devi & 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