Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar vs Paras on 7 October, 2015
-1-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. SHARMA
Civil Revision No.151/2015
Ashok Kumar & Others
Vs.
Paras Gandhi & Others
Civil Revision No.178/2015
Suresh Bhandari
Vs.
Paras Gandhi & Others
Shri S. C. Agrawal and Shri Brajesh Garg, learned counsel
for the applicants.
Shri R. K. Batham, learned counsel for the respondents.
O R D E R
(Delivered on this 07th of October, 2015) Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the civil revisions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Civil Revision No.151/2015 are narrated hereunder.
2- The petitioner before this Court has filed this present revision against the order dated 30/04/2015 passed by Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, Ratlam in Civil Suit No.4-A/2015. 3- The facts of the case reveal that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration, partition and for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants. As per the plaint averments it was a case of joint family property and the plaintiffs being the members of HUF have filed the suit. The family tree also find place in paragraph No.1 of the plaint.
4- In the civil suit the joint family property, which was sold by some of the members was also included and a declaration was sought in respect of cancellation of sale deeds -2- executed in respect of Joint Hindu Family property. A declaration was also sought for declaring the so called will dated 04/12/1979 as null and void.
5- The present applicants who are defendants have preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and a ground was taken regarding improper valuation of the civil suit. In respect of court fees, the plaintiffs have already given an undertaking that they will be paying the deficit court fees and therefore, the only issue before this Court is whether the suit is maintainable or not as the quashment of two sale deeds dated 12/12/2006 and 21/11/2007 and a will dated 04/12/1979 has been sought.
6- Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance upon Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and his contention is that such a composite suit is not permissible in light of the aforesaid statutory provisions of law. In support of his arguments, he has also placed reliance upon judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Pahalwan Singh & Others Vs. Leela Bai and Others reported in 1999(1) JLJ 349. He has also placed reliance upon the judgments delivered by the apex Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & another reported in 2009(4) MPLJ 315 and Ramti Devi (Smt.) Vs. Union of India reported in 1995(I) MPWN 186 (FB) and his contention is that as declaration has been sought for declaring two sale deeds as null and void including a will, in light of the aforesaid judgments the suit is not maintainable. 7- This Court has carefully gone through the judgments delivered by this Court in the case of Pahalwan Singh (Supra) . In the aforesaid case it was not a suit for partition of HUF property and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is distinguishable on facts. In other case i.e. -3- Ramti Devi (Supra) again it was not a case for partition filed by one of the member of Hindu Undivided Family and therefore, again as the facts are distinguishable the judgment is of no help to the learned counsel for the applicants. In the case of Suraj Lamp (Supra) , it was not a case between the same family filed by one of the family member seeking partition of HUF property and therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is of no help.
8- This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the trial Court, is of the considered opinion that the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity nor any jurisdictional error has been committed. The trial Court shall be framing issue on this subject also and after the evidence is adduced, the trial Court shall be free to decide the civil suit on merits. The trial Court shall also frame an issue in respect of limitation also while proceeding ahead with the trial of the suit.
9- With the aforesaid observation, the admission of this civil revision alongwith other connected revision are declined.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE Tej