Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Raj) 565

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Karna Ram S/o Mangla Ram and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, To Be Served Through Secretary, Revenue Department and ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1312/2024
Decided On : 24-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. J. L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Shashank Joshi
For the Respondent: Mr. Moti Singh

IMPORTANT POINT
A partition suit under Section 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is maintainable only by co-tenants, and a party cannot challenge a decree after having benefited from a similar decree.

Headnote:
Rajasthan Tenancy Act - Partition of Land - Section 53 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which governs the partition of land among co-tenants. The court interpreted that a partition suit could only be filed by co-tenants, and since the petitioners were not co-tenants with the respondents, the suit was not maintainable. The court emphasized the importance of the sanctity of compromise decrees and the principle of estoppel, concluding that the petitioners could not challenge the validity of the decree after benefiting from a similar decree themselves.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, legal representatives of Mangla Ram, challenged the dismissal of their second appeal regarding a partition decree made in 1965 under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The original landowner, Bakhta, had two wives and multiple children, leading to disputes over land partition. The petitioners received a portion of land through a compromise decree, while their brothers received a larger share. The petitioners later contested the validity of the decree favoring their brothers, claiming it was not maintainable under the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had previously benefited from a similar decree and could not now challenge the validity of the decree favoring their brothers. The court held that the appeals were rightly dismissed as the petitioners did not raise the issue of maintainability in earlier proceedings and had enjoyed the benefits of the decree without objection for many years.
Issues: Whether the partition suit filed under Section 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was maintainable, and whether the petitioners could challenge the validity of a compromise decree after benefiting from a similar decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a partition suit under Section 53 could only be filed by co-tenants, and since the petitioners were not co-tenants with the respondents, the suit was not maintainable. Additionally, the principle of estoppel prevented the petitioners from challenging the decree after having accepted its benefits.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the decisions of the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue, as the court found no merit in the petitioners' claims.

ORDER :

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer whereby, the second appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed affirming the order dated 26.12.2003 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer.

3. Briefly noted the facts in the present case are that the petitioners are the legal representatives of Mangla Ram, who is the son of the Original Khatedar- Bakhta and Jiya. The grandfather of the petitioners Bakhta was having a land ad-measuring 1715 bighas in Khasra Nos.21, 23 to 27, 29, 30, 33 to 35 & 68 of Village Sarnayat, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer. Bakhta had two wives namely Jiya & Mirgha. Out of the wedlock from Jiya, two sons and two daughters, namely, Mangla Ram, Pancha Ram, Anchi & Meera were born and from the wedlock of Mirgha, five sons, namely, Bagdu Ram, Manak Ram, Balwant Ram, Heera Ram & Bana Ram were born.

4. During the lifetime of Bakhta, on 19.07.1965, a suit bearing No.159/65 was filed by Pancha Ram & Manak Ram against their father- Bakhta for partition under Section 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1955) before Assistant Collector, Pokran. One more suit bearing No.157/65 was filed by Mangla Ram & Bagdu Ram sons of Bakhta against their father (Bakhta) for partition. Both the suits proceedings were compromised by passing a decree on 08.09.1965 and two parcels of land were granted. One parcel of land (464 Bighas) was granted in favour of Mangla Ram & Bagdu Ram and another parcel of land (620 Bighas) was granted in favour of Pancha Ram, Manak Ram and others and the land parcels mentioned hereinabove were directed to be entered in the names of the parties therein as their Khatedari lands.

5. In the year 1971, out of the parcels of Mangla Ram & Bagdu Ram, Bakhta sold 185 bighas of land by three sale deeds. The petitioner-Mangla Ram herein did not challenge the sale made by Bakhta at that time. In the year 2003, the petitioner- Mangla Ram challenged the order dated 08.09.1965 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer by way of filing an appeal in the suit proceedings undertaken in Suit No.159/1965 by Pancha Ram & Manak Ram. The Revenue Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.12.2003 although condoned the delay, however, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The dismissal order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 26.12.2003 was assailed by the legal representatives of petitioner -Mangla Ram by way of filing a second appeal before the Board of Revenue, but, the same too was dismissed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer vide its judgment dated 20.12.2023. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that a suit for partition could not have been filed under Section 53 of the Act of 1955. He further submits that the decree passed in the year 1965 was de hors the law as no partition suit could have been filed under Section 53 of the Act of 1955. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that when the suit proceedings were dehors the law from its inception, therefore, there was/is no sanctity of the decree passed on the suit preferred by Pancha Ram & Manak Ram.

7. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that a suit for partition could have been filed only by a co-tenant and since Pancha Ram & Manak Ram were not the co-tenants of the property in question, therefore, the suit preferred under Section 53 of the Act of 1955 was not maintainable. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that both the Courts i.e. Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue have committed an error while rejecting the appeals preferred by the petitioners and have not dealt with the point raised therein. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that though on the similar footing, a decree was passed by the learned Assistant Collector, Pokran in favour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document