Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rajmata Padmini Devi W/O Late Maharaja ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 September, 2023
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2023:RJ-JP:22346]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2110/2023
1. Rajmata Padmini Devi W/o Late Maharaja Sawai Bhawani
Singh Ji, Aged About 79 Years, R/o The City Palace, Jaipur
(Rajasthan). Through Power Of Attorney Holder Thakur
Narayan Singh Ji S/o Late Sh. Mansingh Ji, R/o Siras
House, Gangapole, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Diya Kumari D/o Maharaja Sawai Bhawani Singh Ji, Aged
About 51 Years, R/o The City Palace, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
Through Power Of Attorney Holder Thakur Narayan Singh
Ji S/o Late Sh. Mansingh Ji, R/o Siras House, Gangapole,
Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Sawai Padamnabh Singh S/o Late Maharaja Sawai
Bhawani Singh Ji, Aged About 24 Years, R/o The City
Palace, Jaipur (Rajasthan). Through Power Of Attorney
Holder Thakur Narayan Singh Ji S/o Late Sh. Mansingh Ji,
R/o Siras House, Gangapole, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Govt.
Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Principal Secretary, General Administration Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretarait, Bhagwan
Das Road, Jaipur.
3. Principal Secretary(Home), Government Of Rajashtan
Govt. Secretariat, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
4. Director General (Home), Govt. Of Rajasthan, City Palace
Area, Jalebi Chowk, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. L. L. Gupta, Adv. & Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Mehta, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Mukesh Joshi, Adv., Mr. Mudit Singhvi, Adv.
Mr. Vineet Mehta, Adv.
Ms. Priya Khushalani, Adv. & Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, AAG with Mr. Devanshu Sharma, Adv.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:03:38 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:22346] (2 of 10) [CMA-2110/2023]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
Date Of Judgment 15/09/2023
The instant appeal has been filed filed by the plaintiffs- applicants-appellants (for short 'the applicants') against the order dated 03.06.2023 passed by the Additional District & Judge No.1, Jaipur Metro-II, Jaipur in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.13/2023 (CIS No.207/2023) titled as Rajmata Padmini Devi & Ors. Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors., whereby the temporary injunction application filed by the applicants under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed.
Learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that the trial court has wrongly dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by the applicants. Learned senior counsel for the applicants further submits that as per the Covenant, the building known as "Jaipur Accounts Offices and the Jaipur Treasury" was a part of City Place. It was shown as private property of His Highness, Jaipur and preserved for future successors of Maharaja, Jaipur. Learned senior counsel for the applicants also submits that the non-applicants were licensee in the property because owner- ship of the property-in-question vested in Maharaja, Jaipur. Learned senior counsel for the applicants also submits that at present, Jaipur Account Offices and the Jaipur Treasury is not functioning in the property-in-question but presently, office of Home Guard is functioning. A new building of the Home Guard office has been constructed at Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. The said office is also going to be shifted there. The non-applicants want to (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:03:38 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:22346] (3 of 10) [CMA-2110/2023] alienate the property-in-question. So, status quo order be passed regarding the property-in-question.
Learned senior counsel for the applicants also submits that the non-applicants are licensee in the disputed property and their license has already been terminated. Learned senior counsel for the applicants further submits that the purpose for which the disputed properties was given to the applicants has been extinguished because Jaipur Account Offices and the Jaipur Treasury is not functioning there. It has been shifted to new building.
Learned senior counsel for the applicants further submits that the trial court while deciding the temporary injunction application considered the prima facie case and also gave the finding that whether the non-applicants are licensee or not and the purpose for which the property was given has been extinguished or not, are triable issues which would be decided in the suit. So, the trial court had to pass the status-quo order regarding the property-in-question.
Learned senior counsel for the applicants further submits that the property-in-question was used by Jaipur Accounts Office and the Jaipur Treasury but once these offices were shifted from the said building, then license granted to use the said property automatically came to an end. Learned senior counsel for the applicants also submits that as per the Covenant, it is crystal clear that these properties are private properties of His Highness. Various correspondences took place between the representatives of His Highness and officials of the non-applicants, in which, officials also sought explanation regarding title of the properties. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:03:38 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:22346] (4 of 10) [CMA-2110/2023] So, it cannot be said that the non-applicants had absolute right in these properties. Learned senior counsel for the applicants also submits that as per the Covenant, no title was transferred to the State and no tenancy right was created.
Learned senior counsel for the applicants also submits that the non-applicants had filed the objections regarding non- maintainability of the suit. The said application was also dismissed by the trial court and matter is subjudice before this Court. Learned senior counsel for the applicants further submits that in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No.7133/2004 titled as Satish Kumar Parik Vs. State Of Rajasthan, this court held that property-in-question/building are of the applicants. So, the order of the trial court be set and aside and non-applicants be directed not to create third party right interest and/or to alienate the disputed property and maintain status-quo regarding the property-in-question.
Learned senior counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) M/s. Lakhara and Co. Vs M/s. Shivakaran bhanwar lal kila reported in air 1995 rajasthan 17; (2) vidya devi Vs state of himachal pradesh and others reported in (2020) 2 supreme court cases 569; (3) kesar bai vs genda lal and another reported in (2022) 10 supreme court cases 217; (4) baini prasad (d) thro' LR's. Vs durga devi reported in 2023(1) DNJ (sc) 78; (5) Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and others vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (dead) through Lrs.reported in (2012) 5 supreme court cases 370; (6) Behram Tejani and Others vs Azeem Jagani reported in (2017) 2 supreme court cases (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:03:38 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:22346] (5 of 10) [CMA-2110/2023] 759; (7) Dnyaneshwar Ranganath Bhandare & anr. Vs Sadhu Dadu Shettigar (Shetty) & ANR. Reported in 2012(1) WLC (SC) Civil 160; (8) Joseph Severance & Ors. Vs Benny Mathew & Ors. Reported in 2005(6) Supreme 516; (9) Panchugopal Barua and others Vs Umesh Chandra Goswami and others reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1041; (10) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Chembur service station reported in 2276/2011-Decided on 2.3.2011 (11) Sant Lal Jain Vs Avtar Singh reported in 1985 Supreme Court 857; (12) M. P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh Vs State of M.P. reported in AIR 1985 Supreme Court 860; (13) Jagdish Vs Shri Girdhari Lal Sharma & ors. Reported in 2022 (5) WLC 90 (Raj.) (14) Municipal Council, Bhilwara Thro' Its Commissioner & Anr. Vs Sarika Chaplot & Ors. Reported in 2022(4) DNJ (Raj.) 1441; (15) Sirajuddin @ Vajir Miyan Vs Abdul Gaffar & Ors. Reported in 2015(1) WLC (Raj.) 448; (16) Bhagwati Singh Vs Raja Laxman Singh reported in 2014 WLC (Raj.) UC 246; (17) Rajeshwer Shankar Choudhary @ Rajesh Choudhary & Anr. Vs Shiv Shankar Choudhary & Ors. Reported in 2013 WLC (Raj.) UC 556; (18) Niranjan Singh & Anr. Vs Rajesh Kumar reported in WLC (Raj.) UC 426; (19) Representative Aam Janta, Village Berdo ka Bas & Anr. Vs Gramin Vikas Vigyan Samiti, Jelu Gagadi & Ors. Reported in 2006(1) DNJ (Raj.) 421; (20) Jai Singh Vs Kuldeep sharma & Anr. Reported in 2013(4) DNJ (Raj.) 1501; (21) Maharwal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) faridkot Vs Baldev Dass reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 104; (22) Vinod Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:03:38 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:22346] (6 of 10) [CMA-2110/2023] Narendra Kumar & Ors. Reported in S.B. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6413/2016 decided on 03/07/2017; (23) Ramsharan Gupta S/o Shri Suraj Narain Khandelwal (Gupta) Vs Krishan Kumar Agarwal @ Kishan Kumar Agarwal reported in 2022 (7) WLC 407 (Raj.); (24) Peer Gulam Naseer Vs Peer Gulam Jelanee S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 657 of 1986, decided on 28.10.1988; (25) Satish Kumar Pareek Vs The state of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7133/2004 (PIL) decided on 5 th May, 2008.
Learned senior counsel for the non-applicants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the applicants and submitted that the suit filed by the applicants is not maintainable because as per the Covenant, the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the dispute regarding Covenant. Learned senior counsel for the non-applicants further submits that no such condition was mentioned in the Covenant that right to use these properties shall be extinguished after transferring/shifting the office.
Learned senior counsel for the non-applicants further submits that the non-applicants are not the licensee in the disputed properties. As per the Covenant, properties were given to the non-applicants for official use and official use should be considered in wider sense and not in narrow sense. Learned senior counsel for the non-applicants further submits that they would neither alienate the property to third party nor would create any third party interest in the property-in-question. Office is running in the property-in-question and they can furnish an undertaking that (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:03:38 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:22346] (7 of 10) [CMA-2110/2023] if the applicants succeed in the suit, they will handover the property to the applicants without any hindrance.
Learned senior counsel for the non-applicants further submits that the correspondences took place between the representatives of the applicants and officials of the non- applicants create no right regarding the property-in-question.
Learned senior counsel for the non-applicants further submits that the non-applicants are using the disputed property for more than 75 years and they are maintaining it. The applicants have no right to restrain the non-applicants in using the property- in-question for official purposes.
Learned senior counsel for the non-applicants also submits that the trial court rightly exercised the discretion while rejecting the temporary injunction application. So, the Appellate Court had no power to adjudicate the matter afresh.
Learned senior counsel for the non-applicants also submits that specific purpose for which the property-in-question was given on license has not been mentioned in the Covenant. So, the applicants had no prima facie case.
Learned senior counsel for the non-applicants further submits that the applicants had claimed the rent of Rs.50,00,000/-(Fifty Lacs) per month. So, no irreparable loss is caused to the applicants. So, the trial court has rightly dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by the applicants. So, the present appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed.
Learned senior counsel for the non-applicants has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) Ramesh Vajabhai (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:03:38 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:22346] (8 of 10) [CMA-2110/2023] Rabari vs Pratiksha Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22430-32/2013 decided on 03.04.2014; (2) State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ushadevi in Civil Appeal Nos. 557-558 of 2012 decided on 15.07.2015; (3) Karan Singh vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 5943-5945 of 1997 decided on 13.04.2004; (4) Tej Singhji vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1965 decided on 06.10.1978; (5) Rajmata Krishna Kumari vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in MANU/RH/0574/2006; (6) The State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs Sawai Tejshinghji Maharaja of Alwar reported in Civil Misc. Petn. Nos. 67 and 68 of 1965 decided on 29.04.1968; (7) Draupadi Devi and Ors. vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos. 3861 and 3862 of 2001 decided on 09.09.2004; (8) Kishorsinh Ratan sinh Jadeja vs Maruti Corp. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 2186-2187 of 2009 decided on 6 April, 2009; (9) Mandali Ranganna & Ors. Etc vs T. Ramachandra & Ors in Civil Appeal no. 3128- 3129 of 2008 decided on 30 April, 2008; (10) Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by Lrs. Vs Bishun Narain Inter College and ors. in Civil Appeal No. 638 of 1980 decided on 08.04.1987; (11) Surendra Kumar Baid vs Rajendra Kumar Baid in S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 153 of 2000 decided on 12.09.2001; (12) N. G. Projects Limited vs Vinod Kumar Jain and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 1846 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2103 of 2022) decided on 21.03.2022; (13) National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited vs Montecarlo Limited and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2021 decided on (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:03:38 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:22346] (9 of 10) [CMA-2110/2023] 31.01.2022; (14) N. R. Dongre and Ors. vs Whirlpool Corpn. and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 10703 of 1996 decided on 30.08.1996; (15) Vimla Devi vs Jang Bahadur in Civil Revision Appln. No. 196 of 1976 decided on 20.04.1977 (16) Wander Ltd. & Anr. vs Antox P. Ltd., reported in 1990 Supp (1) SCC 727; (17) Skyline Education Institute Pvt. Ltd. Vs SL Vaswani & Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 142; (18) N.R. Dongre & Ors. vs. Whirlpool Corporation & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 10703 of 1996 decided on 30.08.1996; (19) Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. Vs Hindustan Lever Ltd., reported in (1997)7 SCC 1; (20) Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by Lrs. vs. Respondent: Bishun Narain Inter College and Ors, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 555.; (21) Draupadi Devi and ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in Manu/SC/0728/2004 and (22) Surendra Kumar Baid vs Rajendra Kumar Baid decided on 12 September, 2001.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel for the applicants as well as learned senior counsel for the non-applicants.
It is an admitted position that as per the Covenant, the property-in-question was given to the non-applicants for government official purposes. At that time, Jaipur Account Offices and the Jaipur Treasury were functioning there. At present, office of the Home Guard is functioning in the disputed properties. A bare perusal of the Covenant, does not reveal that the said property was given on a license and non-applicants were licensee. No specific purpose was assigned in the Covenant and no time limit was mentioned in the Covenant regarding giving the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:03:38 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:22346] (10 of 10) [CMA-2110/2023] possession after shifting of these offices. As per contention of the learned senior counsel for the non-applicants, they are running the government Offices and they would not alienate/or create third party right interest in the property-in-question. The trial court in its order clearly mentioned that official use should be considered in the wider terms and not in the narrow sense. The trial court in its order rightly observed that whether the said property was given on a license or not and whether the purpose of giving the said property has been extinguished or not, are triable issues which would be decided in the trial after evidence. The trial court rightly exercised the discretion in dismissing the temporary injunction application filed by the applicants. So, order of the trial court does not said to be perverse or in contradiction of Law. So, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/266 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:03:38 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)