Khyali Ram And Ors vs Patti Devi Kisturi Devi And Ors

This leave to appeal has been filed by the appellants- applicants seeking leave to challenge the judgment & decree dated 31.07.2018 passed by the

Additional District Judge No.2, Hanumangarh, whereby the suit for specific performance filed by respondent No.1 Smt. Patti Devi against legal

representatives of Pura Ram has been decreed.

It is, inter-alia, indicated that Pura Ram was allotted the land in question after the same was declared as surplus under the provisions of Section 13(5)

(b) of the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the IGNP Colony Area) Rules, 1975. The claim was made that the

applicants being sons of Manphool, were entitled to said surplus land. However, Pura Ram got allotted the land in question on 14.05.1992, the said

allotment was challenged by the appellants before the revenue courts and the same was quashed by order dated 04.12.2015 and the matter has been

remitted back to the allotting authority.

Against the order dated 04.12.2015, the legal representatives of Pura Ram challenged the same before the Board of Revenue ('BOR') by preferring

appeal, however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn by the BOR on 30.11.2017. It is further indicated that the applicants had filed application

under Order I, Rule 10 CPC during the pendency of the suit, however, the application was rejected by the trial court by its order dated 16.04.2018.

Against that order, the applicants filed SBCWP No.6285/2018, however, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the suit itself was decided by

the trial court.

Learned counsel for the applicants made submissions that as the decree has been passed by the trial court ordering for execution of the sale deed qua

the disputed property in favour of the plaintiff Smt. Patti Devi and as allotment in favour of Pura Ram, already stands cancelled by the competent

revenue court, the applicants are affected by the decree passed by the trial court, inasmuch as, Pura Ram, does not have any interest, which could be

transferred by him.

Further submissions have been made that a finding has been recorded by the trial court pertaining to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit

property, which is in possession of the applicants and therefore also, the finding is likely to be used against the applicants in the pending litigation, they

are affected by the judgment impugned and therefore, on that count, they may be granted leave to appeal.

Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the respondent has initiated proceedings before the BOR

and by order dated 15.12.2017, qua the order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Hanumangarh, status quo has been

ordered to be maintained.

Further submissions have been made that once the application filed by the applicants under Order I, Rule 10 CPC has been rejected by the trial court,

no case for seeking leave from this Court is made out and therefore, the application seeking leave deserves to be rejected.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The impugned decree has been passed in proceedings between Smt. Patti Devi and Pura Ram, who is now represented by his legal representatives

pertaining to the land in question. Apparently, in so far as the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is concerned, the applicants do not

come into picture at all. The cause of action, which has been indicated in filing the present application is that the allotment made in favour of Pura

Ram, stands cancelled and the applicants are beneficiary of the same piece of land pertaining to which, the suit has been decreed.

In case, the cancellation of allotment made in favour of Pura Ram stands despite the efforts being made by the respondent-plaintiff seeking to get the

same set-aside, the passing of the decree by the trial court, cannot affect the rights of the appellants.

On the other hand, if the respondent succeeds in getting the allotment made in favour of Pura Ram upheld, the applicants lose any kind of interest in

the property and therefore, in any case, the applicants would sink or swim based on the proceedings before the revenue courts and in so far as, the

present litigation is concerned, they are not affected by the same.

So far as the finding pertaining to the possession of the suit property is concerned, the same also is inter se Smt. Patti Devi and Pura Ram / LRs of

Pura Ram and the same cannot effect the status of the applicants, who was not a party to the litigation, wherein the finding has been recorded and

therefore, the apprehension expressed based on the finding of possession also has no substance.

In view of the above discussion, no case for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned decree is made out. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. It goes without saying that mere fact of dismissal of this application would not effect the proceedings

pending before the revenue courts.

As the appeal filed by the applicants-appellants has not been entertained, the court fees paid by the appellants in the first appeal be refunded to the

appellants.

A certificate in this regard be issued by the Registry.