HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 914/2019

1.

Smt. Barji Devi W/o Gopal Saini D/o Prabhatilal, Aged

About 55 Years, Caste Maali, R/o Baudanaberi Kothi, Ward

No. 7 Chomu District Jaipur. At Present R/o Corner Of

College, Behind Power House, Kaladera, Jaipur

2.

Smt. Vimla W/o Kanhaiya Lal, Caste Maali, R/o Dau

Haveli, Hatwada Road Chomu District Jaipur.

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

Prabhatilal S/o Ghisa, Caste- Maali, R/o - Chaudaniberi

Kothi, Ward No. 7, Chomu, District- Jaipur (Since

Deceased Through His Lrs Defendant No. 2 To 4)

2.

Smt. Vimla W/o Kanhaiya Lal, R/o Near Kaladera Phatak,

Chomu

3.

Smt. Shimla W/o Kana Ram, R/o Nai Mandi, Chomu

4.

Omkar S/o Prabhatilal, Aged About 53 Years, Caste Maali,

R/o Chaudani Beri Kothi, Ward No. 7, Chomu, District-

Jaipur

5.

Smt. Meena Devi W/o Rampal, R/o Ward No. 7, Vikas

Nagar, Kasba Chomu, District Jaipur

6.

Smt. Magan Devi W/o Babulal, R/o Ward No. 7, Vikas

Nagar, Kasba Chomu, District Jaipur

7.

Smt. Suman Devi W/o Kailash, R/o Ward No. 7, Vikas

Nagar, Kasba Chomu, District Jaipur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Gaurav Sharma Saraswat

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Raj Kumar Saini

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

24/08/2021

The matter comes up on an application (1/2020) for

extension of the stay order.

(2 of 4)

[CW-914/2019]

Taking into consideration that the case is pending since 2019

and the proceedings before the trial Court have been stayed, it

would be appropriate to hear this case finally at this stage.

The order impugned dated 14.11.2018 whereby while

rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the learned

Additional District Judge, Chomu, District Jaipur has directed the

petitioner-plaintiff to deposit ad valorem fee on the basis that the

prayer made by the petitioner is essentially for cancellation of gift

deed dated 28.07.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

taken this Court to the prayer made in the plaint as under:-

“18- oknh fuEu vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS %&

a)

;g gS fd okn i= dh pj.k la[;k 3 ¼rhu½ esa of.kZr fjgk;’kh lEifÙk

esa oknhx.k dk 1@72 ¼,d cVkok cgÙkj½ fgLlk vFkkZr izfroknh la[;k 1

¼,d½ ds fgLls esa ls 1@6 ¼,d cVkok N%½ fgLlk dk;e fd;k tkdj mDr

lEifÙk dk caVokjk ckbZ ehVl ,.M ckmUMl djk;s toks vkSj bl vk’; dh

izkjaHk fMØh ikfjr fd;k tkdj 1@12 ¼,d cVkok ckjg½ fgLlk vyx fd;k

tkdj okLrfod ,oa HkkSfrd dCtk fnyok;k tkosaA

b)

;g gS fd okfnuh dk lEiw.kZ okn fo:) izfroknhx.k fMØh fd;k

tkdj cD[k’kh’kukek fnukad 28-07-2004 ¼vBkbZl tqykbZ nks gtkj pkj½

ceqdkcys okfnukh oksbZM,cy gksus ds dkj.k uy ,o oksbZM ?kksf"kr fd;k

tkosA

c)

;g gS fd izfroknhx.k dks LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcan fd;k tkos fd

izfroknhx.k okfnuh dh iq’rSuh lEifÙk ds 'kkfUriwoZd dCtsdk’r ,oa mi;ksx

miHkksx esa fdlh izdkj dh ck/kk dkfjr ugha djs vkSj uk gh okfnuh dks

viuh iq’rSuh lEifÙk ls csn[ky djs vkSj uk gh fuekZ.k dk;Z djsa rFkk

fookfnr Hkwfe dks gLrkUrj.k] jgu] cspku vkfn uk djs rFkk mDr Hkwfe dh

fLFkfr ;Fkkor cuk;s j[ks ,oa jktLo fjdkMZ esa dksbZ ifjorZu uk djsA

d)

;g gS fd [kpkZ eqdnek okfnuh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyok;k tkosA

e)

;g gS fd vU; lgk;rk tks U;k;ky; okfnuh ds gd esa mfpr le>s

fnyokbZ tkosA”

Thus, he submits that the petitioner is non-executant of the

gift deed dated 28.07.2004 and he thus has not prayed for

cancellation of gift deed as an executant but is the person who is

in possession of the property and has sued for declaration that the

gift deed is null and void and does not bind him or his share.

Learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme

(3 of 4)

[CW-914/2019]

Court in AIR 2010 SC 2807: Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs.

Randhir Singh and Ors. to submit that while the effect of the

prayer made is for cancellation of gift deed, however, since the

petitioner is non-executant, he does not have to pay the courts

fee ad valorem for the said purpose. Learned counsel appearing

for the respondent-defendant/s how