HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 43/2019

Iqbal Chhipa S/o Shri Lal Mohammad, Aged About 51 Years, R/o

Ladanu, District Nagaur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Loon Chand S/o Shri Keshrimal, R/o Ladanu, District

Nagaur. Through Power Of Attorney Holder Jitendra S/o Shri

Prabhu Dayal, R/o Ladanu, District Nagaur.

2.

Mohanlal S/o Shri Laxmi Chand, R/o Ramgarh Shekhawati,

Outside Bisau Darwaza, District Sikar.

3.

Rafiq Chhipa S/o Shri Haif, R/o Ladanu, District Nagaur.

4.

Sub Registrar Officer, Ladanu, District Nagaur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. J.K. Bhaiya.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. V.K. Bhadu.

Mr. Manish Dadhich.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Judgment

04/08/2021

This revision petition is directed against the order dated

24.1.2019 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Didwana (Nagaur),

whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII

Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

The suit was filed by respondent No.1 – plaintiff against the

petitioner and three others for cancellation, declaration and

injunction in respect of the suit property on 18.3.2017 inter alia

seeking cancellation of sale deeds dated 11.6.2012 and 8.7.2013

and declaring them as null and void. The suit was filed with the

(2 of 9)

[CR-43/2019]

averments that the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated

16.3.2012 purchased the land from Prabhudayal, since then he

was in possession of the property. It was alleged that on

11.6.2012 defendant No.1 – Mohan Lal without any right, title and

possession, transferred the same to defendant No.2 - Rafiq

Chhipa. The said defendant No.1 – Mohan Lal had purchased the

said land by registered sale deed from Daanmal, who in the year

1946 had transferred the same to his son Laxmi Narayan and,

therefore, he could not have transferred the same all over again.

It was claimed that the defendants were aware of the

transfer in favour of the plaintiff despite that on 11.6.2012, the

transfer was executed, which is void ab initio. It was then averred

that when the plaintiff came to know of the sale deed on

19.6.2012, he filed a suit for injunction alongwith an application

for temporary injunction, wherein, on 13.2.2014 his application

was allowed and injunction against dispossession was granted.

However, during pendency of the said suit, defendant No.2 – Rafiq

Chhipa transferred the property to defendant No.3 – Iqbal Chhipa

by registered sale deed dated 8.7.2013 despite the fact that he

had no possession and title to the suit property.

Submissions were made that as the transfer was affected in

violation of provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property

Act, 1882, the same was void. Further submissions were made

that on 22.7.2017, Iqbal Chhipa tried to break upon the lock of

the gate, based on the sale affected in his favour, the plaintiff

made inquiries from Tehsil office Ladnu, when it was disclosed that

on 8.7.2013 itself the defendant – Rafiq Chhipa had transferred

the land to Iqbal Chhipa, copies of the sale deed were procured

(3 of 9)

[CR-43/2019]

and the defendants were told that they had no right, on which,

they threatened dispossession.

It was claimed that transfer in favour of defendants – Rafiq

Chhipa and Iqbal Chhipa were void ab initio and, therefore, the

suit for declaration was filed and a prayer for injunction was also

made. Application under Section 80(2) CPC was also filed. Based

on the above averments, prayers were made seeking permanent

injunction and declaration regarding the sale deeds being void ab

initio.

The defendant No.3 – petitioner filed an application under

Order VII Rule 11 CPC inter alia with the submissions that as the

plaintiff had indicated in para-4 of the plaint that he became

aware of the sale deed dated 11.6.2012 on 19.6.2012, the suit

having been filed in the year 2017, was barred by limitation and

was liable to be reject