HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1272/2019

1.

Smt. Ratni Kumari Daughter Of Late Bachna Ram, Wife Of

Surendra Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of

Hasalsar, Tehsil Udaipurwiati, District Jhunjhunu,

Presently Resident Of Sarund, Tehsil Kotputli, District

Jaipur.

2.

Smt. Chuki Devi Daughter Of Late Govind Ram Wife Of

Nathu Ram, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Hasalsar,

Tehsil Udaipurwiati, District Jhunjhunu, Presently Resident

Of Tagadoda, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar

(Rajasthan).

----Petitioners-Plaintiffs

Versus

1.

Ashvini Kumar aged about 57 years,

2.

Purshottam, Aged About 55 Years

3.

Madhusudan, Aged About 53 Years

4.

Parmeshwar Lal, Aged About 42 Years,

All sons of Late Maliram, Resident Of Badagaon, Tehsil

Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu Presently Through Ashvini

Teebadewal 3/4 Kabadiya Chambers, 52 Devji Ratanshah

Marg, Mumbai (Maharashtra)

5.

The Sub Registrar, Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu

(Rajasthan).

6.

The Tehsildar, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu

(Rajasthan).

----Respondents-Defendants

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr.Ajay Kumar Tanenia, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Order

06/04/2022

The instant writ petition has been filed by the

petitioners-plaintiffs’ challenging the order dated 29.09.2018

(2 of 4)

[CW-1272/2019]

passed by the District Judge, Jhunjhunu, whereby, the Appellate

Court has set aside the order dated 29.05.2018 allowing the

application filed by plaintiffs-petitioners’ to maintain status-quo of

the property in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs submitted

that the petitioners had filed a suit for injunction against the

respondents-defendants and they also filed an application under

Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC along-with Section 151 CPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

Civil Court, considering the prima facie case in favour of the

petitioners and recording a specific finding that the sale deed

dated 11.12.1956 was in gross violation of mandatory provisions

contained in Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955

(hereafter ‘the Tenancy Act’) as the land was sold by ST person to

non-ST person and as such, the Civil Court considering all the

parameters for grant of temporary injunction, directed the

respondents to maintain status quo and not to alienate the

property in question.

Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners

are admittedly belonging to ST category and their father, if

transferred the land in violation of Section 42 of the Tenancy Act,

such sale was void ab initio.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

Appellate Court has committed serious error in allowing the appeal

filed by the respondents.

Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Court

ought to have considered that the suit was filed by the petitioners

in the year 2013 on discovery of the fact that such sale deed has

been executed.

(3 of 4)

[CW-1272/2019]

Learned counsel further submitted that the Court below

has wrongly come to conclusion that amendment in Section 42 of

the Tenancy Act, was made on 01.05.1964 and as such, the

transactions which had taken place prior to such amendment

would be rendered void.

Learned counsel submitted that provision of

amendment in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, was to consider even

the sale/transfer which was made prior to 1964, as void ab initio

and no right can be claimed by any person on account of such

transfer being made in violation of Section 42 of the Tenancy Act.

Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Court has

wrongly come to conclusion that the dispute between the parties

was already settled in the Revenue Court upto the Board of

Revenue, Ajmer and as such, the Appellate Court has not

considered the prayer which was made in the temporary injunction

app