Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Ranka Buildcon Sole Proprietor Firm vs Lalludas Son Of Ramdev Das Swami on 9 December, 2022
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6942/2021
M/s Ranka Buildcon Sole Proprietor Firm, Through Its Proprietor
Arun Kumar Ranka Son Of Shri Ratan Lal Ranka, Resident Of
590, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Lalludas Son Of Ramdev Das Swami, Aged About 59
Years, Resident Of Patelon Ka Mohalla, Chhapri, Tonk.
2. Mahadev Das Chela Kishandas Dadupanthi Dadudwara,
Narayana, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of 10/37,
Dadudrwra Narayana, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur.
3. Chetan Das Swami Son Of Shri Rampal Das Dadupanthi,
Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Dadudayal Ashram,
Niwai, Tonk, Rajasthan.
4. Rajesh Swami Son Of Shri Harnath Swami, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 2, Jamat Niwai, District Tonk
(Rajasthan).
5. Bhagwan Sahay Son Of Shri Nolaram, Aged About 28
Years, Resident Of Kapadiawas Khurd, Post Gaadota,
Tehsil Maujamabad, District Jaipur.
6. Ratan Lal Son Of Shri Ramdhan, Resident Of Purani Basti,
Jaipur.
7. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur.
8. Collector Jaipur, Office Of District Collector, Banipark
Jaipur.
9. Department Of Local Self, State Of Rajasthan, Through
Director Local Self Department, Jaipur.
10. Nagar Nigam Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur, Through Chief
Executive Officer, Office Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
11. Deputy Registrar-Vi, Registrar Office, Jaipur.
12. Jaipur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary,
Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur.
13. Dadu Sampradaye Main Peeth Narayana, District Jaipur,
Through Mahaan Sant Peethadheeshwar Shri Gopaldas Ji
Dadupanthi, Dadu Ashram Narayana (Narayana) Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 13/12/2022 at 12:16:34 AM)
(2 of 7) [CW-6942/2021]
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vimal Choudhary with Mr. Yogesh
Kumar Tailor
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Pareek, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Nachiketa Pareek
Mr. Rajendra Pareek
Major R.P. Singh AAG with Mr. Aditya
Singh, Ms. Devyani Rathore, AGC
Mr. C.V. Singh for respondents No.7 to
11.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
Order Reserved on :: 01.12.2022
Order Pronounced on :: 09.12.2022
Petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 and
227 of Constitution of India against the order dt. 3.2.2021 passed
by Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Jaipur District Jaipur in Civil Suit No.103/2019 (39/2017) titled as
Lallu Das & ors. vs. M/s. Ranka Buildcon & ors whereby the issues
No.8 & 9 regarding the court fees and pecuniary jurisdiction of the
court were decided in favour of plaintiff/respondents and against
the petitioner/defendant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that four of the
present respondents alongwith four other persons had filed a
Public Interest Litigation. The writ petition was registered as D.B.
CW (PIL) No.4606/2016 titled as Lallu Das Swami & ors. vs. Chief
Secretary Govt. and said writ petition was dismissed in limine vide
order dt. 8.8.2016 in which no direction was given for entertaining
the civil suit or condonation of delay but four respondents who
were petitioner in PIL alongwith two other persons had filed the
civil suit for declaring the sale deed dt.11.12.2012 as null and void
and restoration of possession of suit property. Learned counsel for
(Downloaded on 13/12/2022 at 12:16:34 AM)
(3 of 7) [CW-6942/2021]
the petitioner submits that petitioner had filed an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and said application was dismissed by
the trial court vide order dt. 21.2.2018. Petitioner preferred a
revision against the said order, High Court vide order dt. 7.2.2020
directed the trial court to frame the issue of court fees and
pecuniary jurisdiction of the court and decide as a preliminary
issue. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial court
framed as many as 13 issues on 3.3.2020. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that issue No.8 was related insufficient
court fees and issue No.9 was related to pecuniary jurisdiction of
the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial
court vide order dt. 3.2.2021 decided both the issues in favour of
respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior
to disputed sale, Mahant Kailash Das had sold 254.17 square
meter (304 square yard) land behind children (Baby Park),
Museum road, Village Kishanpole, District & Tehsil Jaipur situated
in khasra No.326 to 330 to M/s. Vimal Umaravmal Builders Private
Limited on 12.6.2008. That sale was not challenged by anyone
including respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that clearly shows that disputed land property is of Mahant Kailash
Das not of Dadu Sampradaye. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that UIT, Jaipur acquired 1 bigha 18 biswa land located in
khasra No.350/2, Village Kishanpole and Tehshil Jaipur and said
land was in Khatedari of Mahant Kailash Das and award of
Rs.23,171/- was credited in favour of Mahant Prahlad Das by land
acquisition officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Mahant Prahlad Das challenged the said proceedings and during
the reference Mahant Prahlad Das was expired and Mahant
Kailash Das was brought on record as legal heirs and award was
(Downloaded on 13/12/2022 at 12:16:35 AM)
(4 of 7) [CW-6942/2021]
increased to Rs.46,169 with 4% interest and said money was
deposited in account of Mahant Kailash Das. Learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that petitioner is a bona-fide purchaser and
he had purchased the disputed land on consideration of
Rs.27,29,00,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
suit property was also declared as personal property of Mahant
Prahlad Das during his life time by Collector (Jagir) Jaipur vide
order dt. 13.3.1969. So, Dadu Sampradaye as well as respondents
have nothing to do with the land in question. Learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that respondents wanted to cancel the sale
deed dt. 11.12.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that respondents cleverly drafted the petition and deliberately
choose to value the suit under Section 24(e) of the Rajasthan
Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 in order to avoid court
fees and altering the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 24(A) of the
Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961, respondents
had to pay the court fees on the market value of the suit property.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Civil Judge (Junior
Division) has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit. So, order of the
trial court dt. 3.2.2021 be quashed and directed the trial court to
return the suit for presentation before the appropriate
jurisdictional court with appropriate court fees.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
following judgments:-1. Golden Tringle Fort and Palace Pvt. Ltd.
vs. Rajkumari Sidhi Kumari & ors. in S.B. Civil Revision Petition
No.638/2002 decided on 19.9.2002; 2. Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha,
Jaipur (Trust) vs. Mahant Ram Niwas and anr. reported in (2008)
11 SCC 753; 3. Foreshore Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs.
(Downloaded on 13/12/2022 at 12:16:35 AM)
(5 of 7) [CW-6942/2021]
Praveen D. Desai (Dead) thr. Lrs & ors. 2015(2) Civil Court Cases
628 (S.C.); 4. M/s. Shakti Sut Udhyog through its Partners vs.
Additional District Judge, Ajmer in AIR 2013 Raj. 74. 5. Executive
Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha Swamy Koli Trust, Virudhunagar
vs. Chandran & ors. 2018 SAR (Civil Supp. 1) 98. 6. Ram Saran &
anr. vs. Smt. Ganga Devi AIR 1972 SC 2685; 7. Dipak Bose @
Haripada vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1972 SC 2686. 8. J.
Vasanthi & ors. vs. N. Ramani Kanthammal (D) Rep. By Lrs. & ors.
2017 SAR (Civil )940; 9. Vithal Tukaram Kadam & anr. vs.
Vamanaro Sawalaram Bhosale & ors. 2017 SAR (Civil) 951; 10.
Makhan Lal vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur City in S.B. Civil
Revision No.104/1977, decided on 13.1.1978. 11. Prahlad Bagdi &
anr. vs. Smt. Gayatri Agarwal & ors. 2021 (1) RLW 588 (Raj.);
12. Mahendra Singh Ranawat vs. Rukmani Devi & anr. in S.B. Civil
Revision No.153/2016 decided on 3.2.2017. 13. Smt. Kamli Devi
vs. Smt. Rampyari in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.280/2022 decided
on 3.8.2022.
Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that petitioners are not a party in the sale deed and
they are followers of Dadu Sampradaye. They do not want to
cancel the sale deed because sale deed is ab initio void. Mahant
Kailash Das had no right to sale the disputed property because
said property belongs to Dadu Sampradaye. So, trial court rightly
came to the conclusion that suit is adequately valued and within
jurisdiction of the civil court, Junior Division. So, petition be
dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the
following judgments:1. Bharat Bhushan Gupta vs. Pratap Narain
(Downloaded on 13/12/2022 at 12:16:35 AM)
(6 of 7) [CW-6942/2021]
Verma and anr. reported in AIR 2022 SC 2867; 2.
Rathnayarmaraja vs. Smt. Vimal AIR 1961 SC 1299; 3.Kamal
Engineering Works vs. Ashwani Kumar and ors. (1989) 2 RLW
463; 4. Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs. Randhir Singh & ors. in
Civil Appeal No.2811-2813/2010 decided on 29.3.2010; 5. Esah
vs. The Wakf Committee, Kota in S.B. Civil Misc.
AppealNo.14/1978 decided on 20.11.1987; 6. Kedar Agarwal &
anr. vs. Rajkumar Agarwal & ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.7484 of 2017 decided on 3.9.2020.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the
respondents.
It is an admitted position that respondents wanted to declare null and void the sale deed dt.11.12.2012. Petitioner had purchased the suit property on consideration of Rs.27,29,00,000/. Respondent failed to submit any document regarding ownership of disputed land in the name of Dadu Sampradaye. Prior to this, Mahant Kailash Das also sold part of the disputed land to M/s. Vimal Umaravmal Builders Private Limited by registered sale deed dt.12.6.2008 and the said sale deed was not challenged by anyone including respondents. Respondents wrongly filed the suit by invoking Section 24(e) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961. Respondent had to file the civil suit by invoking Section 24A of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961. So, in my considered opinion, trial court wrongly came to the conclusion that petitioner can file the suit by invoking provision of Section 24(e) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961. So, finding of the trial court (Downloaded on 13/12/2022 at 12:16:35 AM) (7 of 7) [CW-6942/2021] regarding the issues No.8 & 9 in favour of respondent against the petitioner deserves to be set aside.
Therefore, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order of the trial court dt.3.2.2021 is set aside and trial court is directed to return the civil suit to the respondent for presenting before the jurisdictional court with adequate court fees.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Brijesh 15.
(Downloaded on 13/12/2022 at 12:16:35 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)