Back
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN
Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mahaveer Lunia – Respondent
यह बात उस पैराग्राफ में कही गई है जहाँ यह कहा गया है कि मुद्दे स्वामित्व का निर्धारण केवल सिविल कोर्ट का अधिकार क्षेत्र है और राजस्व प्राधिकारी का इसमें कोई अधिकार नहीं है। विशेष रूप से, यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि राजस्व रिकॉर्ड केवल प्रशासनिक और कराधान के उद्देश्यों के लिए होते हैं, और इन रिकॉर्डों का स्वामित्व या बिक्री का निर्णय केवल सिविल कोर्ट ही कर सकती है। यह विचार उस पैराग्राफ में विस्तार से बताया गया है जहाँ अदालत ने यह भी कहा है कि स्वामित्व, बिक्री, और अधिकारों से जुड़े विवाद केवल सिविल कोर्ट के ही क्षेत्राधिकार में आते हैं। (!)
JUDGMENT :
R. Mahadevan, J.
Leave granted.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur1[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 99/2023, the appellant / plaintiff has preferred the present Civil Appeal. By the said order, the High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, set aside the order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 7, Jodhpur, and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).
3. The facts of the case as projected by the appellant are as follows:
3.1. The appellant company claims to be the owner of the agricultural land purchased in the year 2013, comprising Khasra No.175, 175/2, 175/4, 175/5, 175/6, 175/7 admeasuring 18 bighas 15 biswas situated in Village Pal, District Jodhpur (“subject property”), and they obtained a loan of Rs.7,50,00,000/- from Respondent No.1. On 23.05.2014, the Board of Directors of the appellant company passed a resolution authorising their Managing Director Mr. Vinod Singhvi, and authorised representative Mr. Mahaveer Lunia (Respondent No.1), to s
(1) Rejection of plaint – Suit cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of insufficient Court fee – Law mandates that Plaintiff be afforded opportunity to rectify such deficiency.(2) Agreement to sel....
Fraud vitiates all transactions; unregistered agreements do not confer title or interest in property, and judgments obtained through fraud can be quashed by the High Court under Article 227.
An agreement to sell does not confer any interest in property, and a suit for injunction is not maintainable when title is disputed and the plaintiffs lack personal interest.
A suit is filed with ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC, which focuses on the lower court's jurisdiction and not....
Unregistered agreements do not confer rights in property; a valid title requires a registered sale deed under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 21 Rules 97, 98 and 101 – Execution of decree – Mutation entry in revenue records does not create title nor has any presumptive value on title, but only enables the....
Only a registered sale deed conveys ownership; unregistered documents such as Agreements to Sell do not confer rights in property, making a suit based on them subject to rejection.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
