[2025:RJ-JD:462]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 215/2023

1. Sunil S/o Manohar Lal Sanadhya, Aged About 42 Years, Sanadhya Bhawan, Bhopalganj Bhilwara(Raj)

2. Brijesh Kumar S/o Manohar Lal Sanadhya, Aged About 47 Years, Sanadhya Bhawan, Bhopalganj Bhilwara(Raj)

3. Yogesh Kumar S/o Manohar Lal Sanadhya, Aged About 44 Years, Sanadhya Bhawan, Bhopalganj Bhilwara(Raj)

4. Anil S/o Manohar Lal Sanadhya, Aged About 38 Years, Sanadhya Bhawan, Bhopalganj Bhilwara(Raj)

5. Smt Sheela W/o Manohar Lal Sanadhya, Aged About 65 Years, Sanadhya Bhawan, Bhopalganj Bhilwara(Raj)

----Appellants Versus

1. Ostwal Phoschem (India) Ltd, Through Its Director Shri Rajendra Prasad Ostwal S/o Haraklal Ostwal R/o H-46 Azad Nagar Bhilwara

2. Pankaj Ostwal S/o Mahendra Kumar Ostwal, R/o 5-O-2, R.c. Vyas Colony Bhilwara

3. Manohar Lal S/o Prabhu Lal Sanadhya, Sanadhya Bhawan, Bhopalganj Bhilwara(Raj)

4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Land Holdar Tehsildar, Bhilwara ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rishabh Shrimali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Chotia HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Reportable Judgment

06/01/2025

1. The present regular first appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15.04.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No.05/2021 whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) as filed on behalf of the defendants had been allowed and as a consequence, the suit for cancellation of sale-deeds, declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction as filed on behalf of the plaintiffs stood dismissed. A decree has been drawn accordingly.

2. The averments made in the plaint were to the effect that the land in question was an ancestral and joint Hindu family property and the plaintiffs being coparceners were entitled for their respective shares in the suit property. However, defendant No.3 – Manoharlal, father of plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and husband of plaintiff No.5, sold out the said property to defendants No.1 & 2 without there being any necessity and without he being solely entitled to sell out the same.

3. With the above pleadings, prayers to cancel the sale deeds dated 21.08.2020; for possession of the land in question; for declaration of the land to be the joint Hindu family property and further to be the khatedari land of the plaintiffs; and for permanent injunction, were made in the suit.

4. An application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC in the said suit was filed on behalf of defendants No.1 & 2 on the grounds, firstly that the suit in question is effectively for declaration of khatedari rights qua an agricultural land and hence, the same was not maintainable before a Civil Court. Secondly, no suit for declaration was even maintainable in terms of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 at the behest of son and wife of defendant No.3 as defendant No.3 himself was alive. Thirdly, the land in question was recorded in the revenue records in sole khatedari of defendant No.3 and hence, he being the sole owner/khatedar was legally entitled to sell out the same. Fourthly, even if it is assumed that the property in question was a joint Hindu family property, defendant No.3 sold out the same being the Karta of the family and hence, the plaintiffs had no right to challenge the same and more so, when defendant No.3 himself was alive. Lastly, the land in question was not an ancestral property but the same was of sole ownership of defendant No.3 and the plaintiffs, in collusion with defendant No.3, malafidely filed the present suit to somehow deprive the defendants of their legitimate rights.

5. No reply to the application was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs.

6. Learned Trial Court proceeded on to allow the application while relying upon the judgments in Ramswaroop & Anr. Vs. Smt. Kesar & Ors.; 2015 WLC (Raj.) UC 563 and Amrit Lal &

Ors. Vs. Heera Ram & Anr.; 2016 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1151

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted tha