Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 254
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.
Prakash, S/o. Lt. Shri Parmeshwar Lal - Petitioner
Versus
Shyam Sunder Jain, S/o. Shri Chainroop Musaraf and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 31 of 2024
Decided On : 05-03-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajat Rajpurohit for Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit.
IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Rajasthan Escheat Regulation Act, 1956 does not bar the jurisdiction of the civil court in cases where the suit property is not an escheat property.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Escheat Property - The court held that the suit property was not an escheat property and that the Rajasthan Escheat Regulation Act, 1956 does not bar the jurisdiction of the civil court. The Collector, the authority under the Escheat Act, was a party to the suit but did not raise any objection that the suit property is escheat property, therefore, no ground for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is made out.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought relief from the court to ensure that public properties, including temples and wells, are not damaged and heritage constructions are preserved. The defendant, petitioner in this case, claimed personal interest in the suit properties and argued that the civil court had no jurisdiction as the statutory authority under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 would be competent to entertain the dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit property was not an escheat property and that the Rajasthan Escheat Regulation Act, 1956 does not bar the jurisdiction of the civil court. The Collector, the authority under the Escheat Act, was a party to the suit but did not raise any objection that the suit property is escheat property, therefore, no ground for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is made out.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit property was an escheat property and if the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit property was not an escheat property and that the Rajasthan Escheat Regulation Act, 1956 does not bar the jurisdiction of the civil court.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed as being devoid of any merit.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by refusal of prayer to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by order dated 09.11.2023 passed in Civil Original Suit No.11/2023.
2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 brought the aforesaid Civil Suit stating therein that the suit properties were public properties containing temples, wells, dharamshalas etc. The plaintiffs were social activist, as such, they had interest in protection of the public property, therefore, they sought relief from the court that defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e. Collector and his subordinate officers posted at Churu be directed to ensure that the public properties are not damaged by anyone and the heritage constructions be preserved for the use of common people. The plaintiff further sought issuance of permanent injunction against respondent No.3 to 97 restraining them from making encroachment or damage to the suit properties.
3. The petitioner was defendant No.53. The petitioner appeared in the suit and took plea that the suit properties are of petitioner and his family members. They have personal interest in the suit properties, as such, they have full right to use the said properties.
4. Before the trial Judge as well as before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the civil Court had no jurisdiction as the statutory authority under the Rajasthan Escheats Regulation Act, 1956 would be competent to entertain the dispute.
5. After hearing the parties, this Court is of the view that it is not a case of Escheat property. Escheat is a species of reversion. When a person dies leaving behind no legal heir, the property left behind by the deceased vests in the State and this vesting is called Escheat. The plaint does not reveal that the suit property was a Escheat property nor it is the case of petitioner in the civil suit that the suit property was an Escheat property, rather case of the petitioner was that they are bonafide owner of the said property. Moreover, the Rajasthan Escheat Regulation Act, 1956 does not bar jurisdiction of the civil court. Further, the Collector, who is the authority under the Escheat Act was a party to the suit but has not raised any objection that the suit property is escheat property, therefore, evidently no ground for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is made out.
6. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
