RUP SINGH Vs. GOPAL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order of the District Judge, Mathura dated 9.12.2010 by which he has allowed the revision filed by the Respondent against the order of the Additional Civil Judge, Senior division, Mathura dated 9.8.2010 in Original Suit No. 439 of 2001, Gopal Prasad and Ors. v. Mangi Lal and Ors.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Lalita Devi was the owner of the property in dispute. The said property was purchased by one Radha Govind by way of the registered sale deed from Smt. Lalita Devi. Radha Govind executed a will of the said property in favour of one Mangi Lal. Mangi Lal applied for mutation after the death of Radha Govind before the Tehsildar. The son of Radha Govind, namely, Gopal Prasad raised objection in the mutation proceeding on the ground that the will was forged. The Tehsildar allowed the mutation on the basis of the will and directed to enter the name of Mangi Lal in the revenue record in place of Radha Govind. After the mutation, Mangi Lal has executed a registered sale deed in favour of the Petitioner, Rup Singh Chaudhary on 5.2.2003. The name of the Petitioner has also been mutated in the revenue record. Meanwhile, Gopal Prasad, son of Radha Govind, has also executed a sale deed in favour of Deena Nath Chaturvedi and Smt. Madhu Garg. Deena Nath Chaturvedi and Smt. Madhu Garg filed the appeal being Appeal No. 25 of 2010 challenging the order of the Tehsildar by which the Tehsildar has directed to mutate the name of Mangi Lal in place of Radha Govind. The said appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court against which the revision was filed before the Commissioner being Revision No. 13 of 2003. The revision was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Tehsildar for fresh consideration. Mangi Lal challenged the said order by filing the revision in the Board of Revenue, which has been allowed in his favour. Against the order of the Board of Revenue, Deena Nath Chaturvedi and Smt. Madhu Garg filed Writ Petition No. 45281 of 2006 before this Court. This Court allowed the writ petition and remanded back the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mathura with the direction to decide the matter afresh. In the mutation proceeding, again the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mathura has directed to mutate the name of the Petitioner against which a revision filed by the Respondent has been dismissed.

(3.) It appears that a Suit No. 439 of 2001, Gopal Prasad and Ors. v. Mangi Lal and Ors., has been filed by Gopal Prasad and others. In the said Suit, Deena Nath Chaturvedi and Smt. Madhu Garg moved an impleadment application, which has been allowed. The Petitioner also moved an impleadment application for impleading him as a party in the suit. The said application has been allowed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mathura vide order dated 9.8.2010 against which Gopal Prasad and others filed the revision, which has been allowed by the impugned order.