Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Manna Lal Soni And Ors vs Ramswaroop Soni And Ors on 13 January, 2023
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20634/2017
1. Manna Lal Soni Son Of Late Murlidhar Soni, Jewellery
Shopkeeper, Resident Of Road No. 2, Near J.k. Modi School,
Jhunjhunu Raj.
2. Dayaram Soni Son Of Late Murlidhar Soni Since Deceased,
Resident Of Road No. 2, Near J.k. Modi School, Jhunjhunu
Raj. Died On 13.07.2016 And His Name Is Deleted By Order
Dated 22.10.2016
2/1. Smt. Kanchan Devi Widow Of Late Dayaram Soni, Resident
Of Near J.k. Modi School, Road No. 2 And 3 Ke Beech, Tehsil
And Distt- Jhunjhunu Raj.
2/2. Suresh Son Of Late Dayaram Soni, Resident Of Near J.k.
Modi School, Road No. 2 And 3 Ke Beech, Tehsil And Distt-
Jhunjhunu Raj.
2/3. Anand Son Of Late Dayaram Soni, Resident Of Near J.k.
Modi School, Road No. 2 And 3 Ke Beech, Tehsil And Distt-
Jhunjhunu Raj.
2/4. Suman Daughter Of Late Dayaram Soni And Wife Of
Heeralal Soni, Resident Of Near Sindhi Temple, Sujangarh,
Distt. - Churu Raj.
2/5. Sunita Daughter Of Late Dayaram Soni And Wife Of
Bajaranglal Soni, Resident Of Near Lal Tooti, Sardarshahar,
Distt Churu Raj.
3. Rajkumar Soni @ Rajendra Soni Son Of Late Shri Murlidhar
Soni, Jewellery Shopkeeper, Resident Of Chabutara Chowk,
Near Phutla Bazar, Jhunjhunu Raj.
4. Moti Lal Soni Son Of Late Murlidhar Soni, Jewellery
Shopkeeper, R/o Road No. 2 And 3 Ke Beech, Near Bhargav
Flourmill, Jhunjhunu.
5. Chandra Prakash Soni Son Of Late Murlidhar, Jewellary
Shopkeeper, Resident Of Chabutara Chowk, Centre Of Phutla
Bazar, Jhunjhunu Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Ramswaroop Soni Son Of Late Salagram Soni, Resident Of
Phutla Bazar, District Jhunjhunu Raj. Since Deceased During
The Pendency Of Suit On 21.11.2007 Through His Legal
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:47:40 PM)
(2 of 7) [CW-20634/2017]
Representatives
1/1. Mst. Ghyandhara Widow Of Late Ramswaroop Soni, Resident
Of Near Chabutara Chowk, Phutla Bazar, Jhunjhunu.
1/2. Mst. Sita Devi Daughter Of Late Shri Ramswaroop Soni, Wife
Of Shri Mahendra Soni, Resident Of Near Bar Ka Balaji,
Srimali Ka Mohalla, Jhunjhunu Raj.
1/3. Mst. Rajkumari Daughter Of Late Shri Ramswaroop Soni,
Wife Of Hetram Soni, Resident Of In Front Of Agrasen
Bhawan, Karudiya Road, Jhunjhunu Raj.
1/4. Mst. Manju Devi Daughter Of Late Shri Ramswaroop Soni,
Wife Of Jhabarmal Soni, Resident Of Ward No. 11, Near
Kuru Ke Kua, Near Jati Ji Ke Mandir, Post Fatehpur
Shekhawati, District Sikar Raj.
2. Babulal Son Of Late Shri Salagram Soni, By Caste Sunar,
Resident Of G-83, Indra Colony, Jhunjhunu.
3. Smt. Shanti Devi Widow Of Vishvanath Soni Since
Deceased, Resident In Front Of B.d.k. Hospital, Near
Shankar Kumhars House, Jhunjhunu Raj. Died On
08.08.2015 And Her Name Is Deleted By Order Dated
01.12.2015
4. Smt. Lalita Devi Daughter Of Late Vishvanath Soni, Wife Of
Rajendra Kumar Soni, Resident And C/o Nav Adarsh Vidya
Peeth, House No. 210, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Behind
D.c.m. Godown, Jaipur.
5. Ram Gopal Soni Son Of Late Vishvanath Soni , Trading
Business, Resident Of In Front Of B.d.k. Hospital, Near
Shankar Kumhars House, Jhunjhunu.
6. Smt. Vijay Laxmi Daughter Of Late Vishvanath Soni, Wife Of
Lalchand, C/o Vijay Medical Store, Nansa Gate, Nawalgarh,
District Jhunjhunu
7. Makhan Lal Soni Son Of Late Vishvanath Soni, Shopkeeper,
Resident Of In Front Of B.d.k. Hospital, Shankar Kumhars
House, Jhunjhunu.
8. Kailash Chandra Soni Son Of Ramswaroop Soni, Resident Of
Phutla Bazar, Jhunjhunu Raj.
9. Mahesh Kumar Soni Son Of Ramwaroop Soni, Resident Of
Phutla Bazar, Jhunjhunu Raj.
10. Manoj Kumar Soni Son Of Ramswaroop Soni, Resident Of
Phutla Bazar, Jhunjhunu Raj.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:47:40 PM)
(3 of 7) [CW-20634/2017]
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ashish Joshi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment Reserved on 04.01.2023 Pronounced on 13.01.2023
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 12.10.2017, passed by the learned Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 11/05 (31/03), whereby the objection application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for returning the document (partition deed dated 02.10.1969) to the defendants came to be dismissed, the present writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the partition deed dated 02.10.1969 is forged and fabricated, is neither registered nor duly stamped and thus should not be admissible in evidence. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Javer Chand & Ors vs. Pukhraj Surana: AIR 1961 SC 1655, Jagdish Prasad & Ors vs. Parshu Ram & Anr: AIR 2013 RAJASTHAN 17, and A.C. Lakshmipathy and Ors. vs. A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and Ors.: AIR 2001 MADRAS 135.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, in support of the impugned order dated 12.10.2017, submits that the document dated 02.10.1969 is merely a memorandum of family arrangement and not an instrument of partition and is (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:47:40 PM) (4 of 7) [CW-20634/2017] thus not required to be stamped or registered. In support of her contention, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Ors. vs. Manjit Kaur and Ors.:
(2020) 9 SCC 706, Kale and Ors. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors.: AIR 1976 SC 807 and Rasbihari and Ors. vs. The Additional District Judge (Fast Track) and Ors.: AIR 2014 RAJASTHAN 9.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, scanned the record of the writ petition and considered the judgments cited at Bar.
5. The relevant and operative portion of the impugned order is reproduced below:
"pwafd nLrkost dks izfroknh us vius vfHkopu esa ;knnk'r jkthukek crk;k gS vkSj ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd nLrkost ij le>kSrk tk;nkn vafdr gS vkSj bls iwoZorhZ okn esa izn'kZ Hkh djok;k tk pqdk gSA blds vfrfjDr ekuuh; jkt0 mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15345/2011 Rasbihari & Anr. Vs. The Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) & Ors. fnukad 30 vxLr] 2013 esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd N15. Testing the writing of Anx.3 dt.
23/09/1972, in the light of the above legal propositions, this court is convinced that the writing was merely a memorandum of family arrangement and not an instrument of partition requiring levy of stamp duty or required to be compulsorily registered. The property involved was the joining family property of Bhagwandas and his three sons namely; Ballabhdas, Bithaldas and Girdhardas and the fact was admitted in the writing, so, the rights of Ballabhdas, Bithaldas and Girdhardas were not created for the first time through this document. The document was not the vehicle for transfer of rights. By the mere fact that the document contained the wourd like today does not make it an instrument of partition. ,slh fLFkfr esa (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:47:40 PM) (5 of 7) [CW-20634/2017] QSesyh vjsates.V dks eqnzkad vkSj iath;u ds vHkko esa Hkh lk{; esa xzkg~; ekuk tk ldrk gSA pwfa d bl nLrkost ds fo"k; esa izfroknh ds ftEes fook/kd la[;k 2 Hkh fojfpr fd;k x;k gS vkSj izfroknh dk nLrkost okLro esa izfroknh dh lk{; ls gh lkfcr gks ldsxkA ;fn izfroknh dks vius izfrokn ds lanHkZ esa oknh lk{; ds le{k bls Vs.Mj Hkh fd;k tkrk gS rks ek= blh dkj.k bls izekf.kr ;k lkfcr gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrk vkSj ;fn bl nLrkost ds xq.kkoxq.k ij bl izØe ij dksbZ jk; dk;e dh tkrh gS rks ;g fook/kd la[;k 2] tks izfroknh dks viuh lk{; ls lkfcr djuk gS] dk blh Lrj ij fuLrkj.k Hkh ekuk tk ldrk gSA iwoZorhZ iz'uxr okn esa bls izn'kZ fd;k tk pqdk gSA ;g U;k;ky; bl er ls lger gS fd ftl nLrkost dk fof/k esa i;kZIr eqnzkafdr gksu visf{kr gS o veqnzkafdr gksus ds dkj.k fdlh Hkh iz;kstu ls lk{; esa xzkg~; ugha gS ysfdu gLrxr ekeys ds fof'k"V rF;ksa ds lanHkZ esa mDr fof/kd fLFkfr ds n`f"Vxr bl Lrj ij nLrkost fnukad 02-10-1969 ds xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ jk; dk;e fd;s fcuk bls lk{; esa izn'kZ djok;s tkus dh vuqefr nsuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA ;gka ;g Hkh Li"V djuk mi;qDr gksxk fd nLrkost dh izekf.kdrk i{kdkjksa dh lk{; ls gh fl) gks ldsxhA vr% oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gS vkSj nLrkost dks izn'kZ djokus dh vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gSA vf/koDrk oknh us fuosnu fd;k gS fd vkt muds lk{kh mifLFkr ugha gS mUgsa funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd izdj.k vR;Ur iqjkuk gS vr% xokg dks vkbZUnk mifLFkr j[ksA i=koyh okLrs lk{; oknh@izfrj{kk fnukad 08-11-2017 dks is'k gksA"
6. The learned Trial Court had observed and held as under:
(i) That the case is of 2005, i.e. more than 12 years old;
(ii) That the document is purported to be a memorandum of family arrangement, which is not required to be stamped;
(iii) That the said document was part of the record and was marked as an exhibit in the earlier suit;
(iv) That the said document is merely marked as an exhibit and liberty was granted to challenge the same at the stage of evidence.(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:47:40 PM)
(6 of 7) [CW-20634/2017] 7. The learned Trial Court had not ruled on the
authenticity or genuineness of the document in question and clearly held that the parties would be free to challenge or defend the same by adducing evidence at the appropriate stage.
8. It is trite law that there is limited scope of interference with a well-reasoned order while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is a well settled principle of law that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law. It has been held that though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Reliance in this respect can be placed on Hon'ble Apex Court judgment of Mohd. Inam vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal and Ors.: (2020) 7 SCC
327.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. This Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Court below. There is no violation of principles of natural justice and no palpable error has crept in the order of the learned Trial Court. The order impugned does not cause any serious prejudice to the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:47:40 PM) (7 of 7) [CW-20634/2017] petitioner, warranting interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
10. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are on entirely different facts and circumstances and would be applicable when the document/instrument is mandatorily required to be stamped and is not duly stamped. In the present case, whether the document dated 02.10.1969 is a memorandum of family arrangement or a partition deed is yet to be determined. Therefore, the judgments cited are distinguishable.
11. At this stage, liberty is granted to either sides to raise their objection/defence in opposition or in support of the merits of the document dated 02.10.1969.
12. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
13. Interim protection granted earlier is also lifted. Learned Trial Court is directed to carry out the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.
(SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/73 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 03:47:40 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)