SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
KAILASH CHAND – Appellant
Versus
SMT TIJA DEVI AND ORS – Respondent
CW/9768/2014



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9768/2014

Kailash Chand Sharma S/o Shri Gyarsi Ram Sharma, age 55

years, R/o Donda kin Dhani, Tikam Pura, Tehsil Jamwaramgad,

District Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner/Defendant No.1

Versus

1. Smt Tija Devi W/o Shri Kajordmalji Patel, Age 62 years, R/o

Plot No.17, Shiv Colony, Purana Ramgad Mod Jaipur.

2. Smt. Choti Devi W/o Shri Badrinarayan Sharma, age 60 years,

R/o Manpur Kala, Tehsil Jamwaramgad, District Jaipur.

3. Smt. Manbhari Devi W/o Shri Rameshwar Sharma, age 58

years, R/o Gram Post Sarna Doongar, Mehanto ki Dhani, Tehsil

and District Jaipur.

----Respondents/Plaintiffs

4. State of Rajasthan through Collector, Collector Officer,

Banipark Jaipur.

5. Sub Registrar Jamwaramgad, District Jaipur.

----Perform Respondents/Defendant No.2 to 3

Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9757/2014

Mohan Lal Sharma S/o Shri Gyarsi Lal Sharma, age 50 years,

R/o Donda Ki Dhani, Tikam Pura, Tehsil Jamwarangad, District

Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner/Defendant No.1

Versus

1. Smt Tija Devi W/o Shri Kajordmalji Patel, Age 62 years, R/o

Plot No.17, Shiv Colony, Purana Ramgad Mod Jaipur.

2. Smt. Choti Devi W/o Shri Badrinarayan Sharma, age 60 years,

R/o Manpur Kala, Tehsil Jamwaramgad, District Jaipur.

3. Smt. Manbhari Devi W/o Shri Rameshwar Sharma, age 58

years, R/o Gram Post Sarna Doongar, Mehanto ki Dhani, Tehsil

(2 of 8)

[CW-9768/2014]

and District Jaipur.

----Respondents/Plaintiffs

4. State of Rajasthan through Divisional Commissioner,

Divisional Commissioner Office, Banipark Jaipur.

5. Sub Registrar Jamwaramgad, District Jaipur.

----Perform Respondents/Defendant No.2 to 3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9758/2014

Raghunath Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Kana Ram Sharma, age 38

years, R/o Donda Ki Dhani, Tikam Pura, Tehsil Jamwaramgad,

District Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner/Defendant No.1

Versus

1. Smt Tija Devi W/o Shri Kajordmalji Patel, Age 62 years, R/o

Plot No.17, Shiv Colony, Purana Ramgad Mod Jaipur.

2. Smt. Choti Devi W/o Shri Badrinarayan Sharma, age 60 years,

R/o Manpur Kala, Tehsil Jamwaramgad, District Jaipur.

3. Smt. Manbhari Devi W/o Shri Rameshwar Sharma, age 58

years, R/o Gram Post Sarna Doongar, Mehanto ki Dhani, Tehsil

and District Jaipur.

----Respondents/Plaintiffs

4. State of Rajasthan through Divisional Commissioner,

Divisional Commissioner Office, Banipark Jaipur.

5. Sub Registrar Jamwaramgad, District Jaipur.

--------Perform Respondents/Defendant No.2 to 3

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr.Kapil Bardhar, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr.Raj Kamal Gaur, Adv.

Mr.Dilip Singh Jadaun, Adv.

Mr.Akshay Sharma, Addl. Govt.

Counsel

(3 of 8)

[CW-9768/2014]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Order

07/03/2022

The present writ petitions are decided by this common order,

as the issue involved in all these petitions, is in respect of the

decision given by the Court below on the application filed by the

petitioner under Sections 10 & 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fee and

Valuation of the Suit Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act

of 1961’) along-with the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11

CPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners-Mr.Kapil Bardhar

submitted that the plaintiffs-respondents had filed suit under

Order 7 Rule 1 CPC, whereby the title of the suit was described as

‘suit for declaration and permanent injunction’.

Learned counsel submitted that the prayer sought in the suit

was not only in respect of declaration but petitioners also prayed

for cancellation of the sale deed dated 02.03.2012.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners-defendants

moved an application under Section 10 & 11 of the Act of 1961

along-with Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, whereby it was prayed that the

plaintiffs had not paid the correct Court Fee for valuation of their

suit and as such the suit was not to be entertained by the Court.

Learned counsel submitted that in the application filed by the

petitioners-defendants, it was sp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top