GUJAR MAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision by Gujar Mal is directed against an order of learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, dated 3rd June, 1983 whereby he allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 18th May, 1983 passed by learned Assistant Collector, Alwar, in proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE dispute relates to Khasra No. 210 measuring 4 Bighas 13 Biswas situated in village Chandpuri Tehsil Thanagazi. THE dispute was initially raised by Mst. Shyokori (now deceased) against Gujarmal by initiating proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. On a complaint lodged by Smt. Shyokori the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh, passed a preliminary order on 4th February, 1975, and thereafter attached the land and a receiver was appointed over the land in dispute. It appears that the proceedings continued for sufficiently long time and in the mean time Smt. Shyokori sold the land in question to Ramji Lai by a registered sale-deed dated August 7, 1982. It appears that sometime thereafter dispute arose between Shyokori and Ramji Lal and as such Shyokori entered a compromise with Gujar Mal on 13th January, 1983 in the present proceedings pending under section 145 Cr. P. C. Shyokori also filed a suit on 14th January 1983 for cancellation of the sale-deed made in favour of Ramji Lal, on the ground of fraud. THE learned trial court took note of the compromise filed by Shyokori and passed an order on 18th May, 1983 declaring the petitioner Gujar Mal to be in possession over the disputed land Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned trial Court, Ramji Lal went in revision. Learned Sessions Judge, Alwar took the view that Ramji Lal, in whose favour the land in question have been transferred, was a necessary party and in these circumstances he set aside the order of the learned trial Court and remanded the case for deciding afresh after impleading Ramji Lal as party. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge, Gujar Mal has filed the present revision petition. It may be further mentioned that Shyokori died during the pendency of the revision petition before this Court.

(3.) BE that as it may, we are not concerned about the genuineness or validity of such compromise made by Smt. Shyokori but the fact remains that the dispute relating to actual possession over the land on the date of preliminary order or two months prior to that has not continued pressed so far as Shyokori is concerned. Shyokori has now died during the pendency of the revision before this court. There is no provision for a transferee continue proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. on behalf of the transferer who was initially one of the parties in proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. The transaction of sale itself had been challenged by Smt. Shyokori herself during her life time by filing a suit for cancellation of such sale-deed on ground of fraud on 14th January, 1983. All these disputed and complicated questions cannot be decided in proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. The title of Ramji Lal to continue these proceedings on behalf of Shyokori itself is under cloud and such sale was challenged during the life time of Smt. Shyokori herself. The right of Ramji Lal if any, is based on title, which he has derived from Smt. Shyokori by a registered sale-deed dated 7th August, 1982 and he has his remedy by taking appropriate proceedings in a competent civil court or revenue court on the basis of such sale-deed made in his favour.