GOPALI BAI Vs. PUSHPA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant -petitioners are aggrieved by order dt. 21.08.2009 passed by the District Judge Baran whereby the learned Judge has rejected the petitioners' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Briefly, the facts of the case are that two sisters, Pushpa Bai and Samudra Bai, filed a civil suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deeds dt. 29.09.2008 and 17.09.2008 by which the property allegedly belonging to their parents were sold by Ram Kishan who claimed to be their adopted brother. According to the plaintiff -respondents. Ram Kishan was never adopted by their mother, Manni Bai. Therefore, they also sought the relief that it be declared that Ram Kishan is not an adopted son of their parents.

(2.) FURTHER , according to the plaintiffs -respondents, their father, Kanhaiya Lal, had one -fourth share in Khasra No. 671 Rakba 342 Hectare, and in Khasra No. 566 Rakba 2.24 Hectare in Village Samaspur, Tehsil Baran, District Baran. After their father's death, the said land devolved upon their mother, Manni Bai, and upon the plaintiffs -respondents. Moreover, after the death of Manni Bai, the said land devolved upon the plaintiffs -respondents. However, treating Ram Kishan as the adopted son, on 25.09.1998 a mutation was opened in his name. Although he was never adopted as a son, but using the mutation in his favour, on 29.09.1998, Ram Kishan sold 1/12th part of the share in Khasra No. 671 to Gopali Bai (the petitioner No. 1 before this Court), and sold another 1/12th share of the land in Khasra No. 566 on 17.09.2008 to Anisa Bano (the petitioner No. 2 before this Court). Therefore, the plaintiffs -respondents not only prayed for declaring Ram Kishan as having not been adopted by their parents, but also prayed for cancellation of the sale deeds dt. 29.09.2008 and 17.09.2008.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC ostensibly on three grounds : firstly, that the plaintiff -respondents had filed the suit for cancellation of registered sale -deed and for declaration of khatedari rights of the entire land. Since this was the main prayer made by the plaintiff -respondents, the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction, as the jurisdiction vested in the Revenue Court. Secondly, since various sale -deeds have been challenged and different relief's have been prayed for, the suit suffered from mis -joinder of causes. Thirdly, since sufficient Court fees had not been paid, the plaint should be returned. However, by order dt. 21.08.2009 the learned Judge has rejected the said application. Hence, this petition before this Court.