Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bastiram Son Of Shri Beejaram vs Smt. Aapu Daughter Of Late Beejabhambhi on 11 July, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:25537]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 103/2022
Bastiram Son Of Shri Beejaram, Aged About 37 Years, Resident
Of Village Motisar, Tehsil Pisangan, District Ajmer.
----Petitioner-Defendant
Versus
1. Smt. Aapu Daughter Of Late Beejabhambhi, Resident Of
Village Motisar, Tehsil Pisangan, District Ajmer.
2. Smt Naurati Daughter Of Late Beejabhambhi, Resident Of
Village Motisar, Tehsil Pisangan, District Ajmer.
3. Smt. Leela Daughter Of Late Beejabhambhi, Resident Of
Village Motisar, Tehsil Pisangan, District Ajmer.
4. Smt. Sohani Daughter Of Late Beejabhambhi, Resident Of
Village Motisar, Tehsil Pisangan, District Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aayush Agarwal, Adv. with Mr. Rajesh Sain, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Reashm Bhargava, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date of Judgment 11/07/2025
The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short 'the defendant') under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 13.01.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Ajmer in Civil Suit No.31/2021, titled as "Smt. Aapu & Ors. Vs. Bastiram" 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 plaintiffs- respondents (for short 'the plaintiffs') filed a suit for declaration (Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 12:40:54 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:25537] (2 of 6) [CR-103/2022] and cancellation of the will dated 12.08.2010 in which the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC praying therein that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is time barred and no cause of action accrued to them for filing the suit but the trial court vide order dated 13.01.2022 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant.
Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that earlier the plaintiffs had filed a suit before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pisangan to the effect that they are the daughters of Late Shri Beeja and the properties mentioned in the suit were self acquired properties of Beeja. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pisangan vide judgment and decree dated 22.10.2010 while dismissing the aforesaid suit, observed that without a declaration of the legal heirs, the plaintiffs cannot file the suit. They suppressed the said judgment and decree dated 22.10.2010 and got opened a mutation in their favour. On the application filed by the defendant, the said mutation was cancelled.
Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that as per the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2010 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pisangan, the plaintiffs had first to get them declared as a legal heirs of Late Shri Beejaram. After that, they could file the suit.
He further submitted that the plaintiffs also got the knowledge of the said will dated 12.08.2010 in the year 2010 and the suit was filed by them in the year 2021. So, the suit was time barred. Hence, the trial court should have dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. So, the present petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed.
(Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 12:40:54 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:25537] (3 of 6) [CR-103/2022] Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that on receiving the notice dated 13.09.2021, the plaintiffs came to know about the said will. So, they challenged the said will within the limitation.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs further submits that mere observation of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pisangan that the plaintiffs should first got them declared as legal heirs of late Shri Beejaram is not a bar for filing the suit because the plaintiffs wanted to challenge the validity of the said will. So, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that all these objections raised by the defendant in the application, would be decided after recording the evidence. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance on the following judgments:- 1. Vimal Kumar Jain Vs. Mahaveer Pd. Jain reported in 2006 WLC (UC)283; (2) Vijay Sharma & Anr. Vs. Ayodhya Devi & Ors. reported in 2014 (3) WLN 520 (Raj.); (3) Shanno Devi (Smt.) & Anr. Vs. Satish Chowdhary & Ors. reported in 2017 (4) DNJ (Raj.) 1792; (4) Raj Kumar Raghubanchmani Prasad Narain Singh Vs. Ambica Prasad Singh (Dead) By Lawyers & Ors. reported in 1970 (3) SCC 350; (5) Ram Awalamb & Ors. Vs. Jata Shankar & Ors. reported in AIR 1969 Allahabad 526; (6) Vaish Aggarwal Panchayat Vs. Inder Kumar & Ors. reported in AIR 2015 SC 3357; (7) Sukhpal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in AIR 1998 Rajasthan 103; (8) Maniram & Ors. Vs. Mamkori & Ors. reported in 2021 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 610; (9) Mahendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. Maya Devi (Smt.) & Ors. reported in (Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 12:40:54 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:25537] (4 of 6) [CR-103/2022] 2021 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 174; (10) Kuldeep Singh Pathania Vs. Bikram Singh Jaryal reported in AIR 2017 SC 593; (11) Chhotanben & Anr. Vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar & Ors. reported in 2018 (2) RJT 1384; (12) Urvashiben & Anr. Vs. Krishnakant Manuprasad Trivedi in Civil Appeal Nos.12070-12071 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.23062-23063 of 2018) decided on 14.12.2018; (13) Smt. Sharda Devi Vs. Iqbal Singh & Ors. reported in 2015 (3) WLC (Raj.) 683; (14) Chainaram Bhat Vs. Smt. Shanti & Ors. reported in 2018 (3) RLW 2097 (Raj.); (15) Uttam Solvent Extraction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. reported in 2018 (3) RLW 2156 (Raj.); (16) Abdul Aziz Vs. Zakir Mohammad & Ors. in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.589/2017 decided on 22.10.2018; (17) Kedar Infracon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Daulat Ram Nagda & Ors. reported in 2019 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 839; (18) Pawan Kumar Vs. Dharamveer & Ors. reported in 2021 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 47; (19) Hari Prasad & Anr. Vs. Suresh Kumar Ahir & Ors. reported in 2020 (3) RLW 2075 (Raj.); (20) Suresh Chandra Joshi Vs. State of Uttrakhand & Ors. reported in 2020 (142) ALR 466; (21) Krishna Wadehra & Ors. Vs. Ram Prasad & Ors. reported in 2022 (237) AIC 502 (Del.H.C.); (22) Wilson Pereira Carvalho & Anr. Vs. Nicolau Fernandes & Anr. reported in 2019 (2) Maharashtra Law Journal 438; (23) Smt. Omwati & Ors. Vs. Raghubar Singh Yadav & Ors. reported in 2020 (142) ALR 111; (24) P.V. Guru Raj Reddy Rep. By GPA Laxmi Narayan Reddy & Anr. Vs. P. Neeradha Reddy & Ors. reported in AIR 2015 SC 2485; (25) M/s New India Construction Company & Ors. Vs. Kabool Singh & Ors. reported in 2013 (4) Civil Court Cases 686 (P&H); (26) Anushri Jain Vs. Anamika Jain & Ors. (Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 12:40:54 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:25537] (5 of 6) [CR-103/2022] reported in 2022(2) MPLJ; (27) Nanji Sunderji Sejpal Vs. Vithuram Shivlal Lahoti Dengai Trust reported in 2019 (2) Maharashtra Law Journal 115; (28) Executive Officer, Nagarpalika, Deshnok District Bikaner Vs. Lichhudan & Ors. reported in 2019 (2) RJT 994; (29) Chandrabhaga Ananda Kudle & Anr. Vs. Proposed Sanjay Sahakari Grah Nirman reported in 2019 (6) Maharashtra Law Journal 182 (30) Govind Narayan Vs. Shri Baheti Dharmshala & Ors. reported in 2011 (4) Civil Court Cases 703 (Raj.); (31) Imortal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Lookwell Life Space Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2012 (3) Civil Court Cases 306 (Raj.) and (32) Shri Prahladsingh Ramkhilaansingh since deceased by his heir and legal representative Savitri wd/o Surender Singh Prahladsingh Vs. Sudhir J. Bhalekar & Anr. reported in 2014 (1) Civil Court Cases 435 (Bombay).
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
It is an admitted position that the plaintiffs wanted to challenge the will dated 12.08.2010. As per the averments of the plaint, on receiving the notice dated 13.09.2021, the plaintiffs came to the know about the said will. The observation of the Sub- Divisional Officer, Pisangan regarding the plaintiffs to get them declared the legal heirs of Late Shri Beejaram is not a bar for filing the suit. The trial court while deciding the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC rightly came to the conclusion that the objections raised by the defendant would be decided after recording the evidence. So, in (Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 12:40:54 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:25537] (6 of 6) [CR-103/2022] my considered opinion, the petition filed by the defendant deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/80 (Downloaded on 26/07/2025 at 12:40:54 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)