IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
REKHA BORANA, J.
Sureshpal Singh Tanwar S/o Shri Dharm Singh - Appellant
Versus
LRs. of Smt. Bhanwari Devi W/o Late Shri Surjaram - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 964 of 2025
Decided On : 07-04-2025
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 - Application for interim relief - Plaintiffs sought to restrain defendants from dispossessing them from land bequeathed via Will dated 27.03.1984 - Defendants sold land to third parties despite pending mutation appeal - Court granted interim relief to maintain status quo until final disposal of the suit. (Paras 1, 16, 17)
(B) Possession and Title - The court emphasized that the question of whether a Will was executed in favor of the plaintiffs could only be determined after evidence is presented, thus interim relief was warranted to protect the status quo. (Paras 9, 15)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, legal representatives of Bhanwari Devi, claimed possession of land bequeathed to her by Gunesh Ram via a Will executed in 1984. Despite this, the land was mutated in favor of Gunesh Ram's legal representatives, leading to subsequent sales to third parties. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to interim relief to maintain status quo regarding the property until the final decision on the Will's validity. (Paras 16, 17)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the Will executed by Gunesh Ram and the rights of subsequent purchasers. (Paras 11, 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the determination of the Will's validity requires evidence, and until then, the status quo must be preserved to protect the rights of all parties involved. (Paras 15, 16)
Result: The order dated 19.12.2024 was modified to maintain status quo regarding the property until the suit's final disposal.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Misc. Case No.467/2024 (NCV No.467/2024) whereby the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151, CPC as filed on behalf of the plaintiffs stood allowed and it was directed that till the final disposal of the suit, the defendants shall not dispossess the plaintiffs from the land as bequeathed to their mother vide the Will dated 27.03.1984.The defendants were further restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and also to maintain status quo regarding the property in question.
2. The facts are that the legal representatives of one Bhanwari Devi (Respondent Nos.1/1 to 1/9) filed a suit for declaration and injunction with a submission that way back in the year 2001-02, a Will was executed by Gunesh Ram (the Khatedar of the property in question) in favour of Bhanwari Devi, their mother. Gunesh Ram expired on 02.08.2004 and since then Bhanwari Devi was in possession of the property in question. Despite the land being bequeathed by Gunesh Ram to Bhanwari Devi, the Revenue Officers mutated the land in favour of the legal representatives of Gunesh Ram and therefore, in the year 2015 a mutation appeal was filed by Bhanwari Devi which remains pending as of date.
3. Subsequently, Bhanwari Devi expired on 19.12.2019 and her legal representatives are in possession of the property in question since then.
4. It was further submitted that because of the erroneous mutation entries made in favour of the legal representatives of Gunesh Ram in the year 2012, they proceeded on to sell out the land in question to different purchasers (defendant Nos.2,3 and 4) from time to time. The sale deed was executed in favour of defendant No.4 in the year 2024 for 14 biswas of land.
5. At this stage it is relevant to note that the present appeal has been filed by defendant No.4 – Suresh Pal Singh Tanwar only.
6. The case of defendant No.4 was that firstly, no Will was executed by Gunesh Ram in favour of Bhanwari Devi. Secondly, plaintiffs were in possession of the land of Babu Ram (brother of Gunesh Ram). In the garb of the possession on the land of Babu Ram, the plaintiffs were trying to encroach on the land of Gunesh Ram too. It was further submitted on behalf of defendant No.4 that even in the mutation appeal as filed by the legal representatives of Bhanwari Devi, an application for impleadment had been filed by him which remains pending.
7. It was further submitted that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the land which was sold out to defendant No.4 and hence they do not deserve any interim relief in their favour.
8. The learned Trial Court while allowing the application relied upon the documents as placed on record by the plaintiffs i.e. their Aadhar Card and documents pertaining to water and electricity connection. Court also relied upon the photographs of the site in question reflecting the residential houses existing on the site.
9. The learned Trial Court further observed that the question whether any Will was executed by Gunesh Ram in favour of Bhanwari Devi, could be decided only after the evidence being led and the issue being decided finally, till that date interim relief deserves to be granted in favour of the plaintiffs. 10. Heard the counsels and perused the record.
11. The present is a suit for declaration of the sale deeds executed in favour of the subsequent purchasers by the legal representatives of Mafat Lal (son of Gunesh Ram) to be null and void.
12. What is evident on record is that the plaintiffs who claimed to be in possession of the land in question by virtue of a Will executed in the year 1984 and came into effect after the death of Gunesh Ram in the year 2004, did not take any step for the mutation entries to be made in their favour till the year 2012 when the mutation entries were ultimately made in favour of the legal representa
The court held that interim relief to maintain status quo is justified when the validity of a Will is under dispute, pending evidence presentation.
The court concluded that the respondent lacked jurisdiction to revisit the validity of the sale deed during mutation proceedings, reaffirming that such matters should be handled by competent legal au....
A sale deed canceled by a Civil Court prevents subsequent actions vesting the land in the State, affirming the validity of the registered sale deed in favor of the petitioner.
Temporary injunction—In order to succeed in application for grant of temporary injunction, plaintiffs are required to show not only existence of a prima facie and arguable case in their favour, but t....
Mutation orders require evidence of possession through lawful transfer, and failure to consider possession invalidates such orders.
Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title, probate or decree validity in mutation proceedings; must effect mutation on registered civil decrees for fiscal purposes unless set aside by competent cou....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.