GHEVAR CHAND Vs. BHANWAR DAS & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 21.4.2014 passed by Addl. District Judge No.2, Beawar District Ajmer, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the objections raised by the petitioner to an application filed by the respondent-defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, the petitioner has approached this court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the ancestral land belonging to one Gopi alias Gopal Das was submerged in the Narayan Sagar Dam. Therefore, in lieu of compensation, Gopi alias Gopal Das was allotted an agriculture land situated in village Jaliya-II, patwar halka Jaliya-II, Tehsil Masooda, District Ajmer. The land was in khasra No.4112 Rakba 7 Bigha 19 Biswa, in khasra No.4113 Rakba 3 Bigha 7 Biswa, and in khasra No.4412/6800 total Rakba 11 Bigha 6 Biswa. According to the petitioner, since Gopi needed money for running his family, on 10.2.1982 he sold the said land to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.5,000/-, and handed over the possession of the said land to him. Therefore, he claims that he has been in continuous possession of the said land since 10.2.1982. After purchasing the land, he has improved the land by constructing a well and carrying out other development activities. In order to have the said land mutated in his name, the petitioner filed an application for issuance of patta, and deposited the required fee on 1.2.1985 before the Additional Collector and Sub Division Officer. While the said application was pending before the SDO, Gopi expired. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed an application for mutation of the land in their names as they were Gopi's legal heirs. They filed the said application on 20.2.2008 before the Panchayat Samiti Masooda. On 3.3.2008 the mutation was opened in their names, namely Mutation No.590. Despite the fact that it was well known to the defendants that their father had sold the said land to the petitioner, still the defendants sold the land to defendant No.5 by sale-deed dated 1.4.2008. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit for mandatory injunction, and for declaration of the sale-deed dated 1.4.2008 as null and void.

(3.) Respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted their written statement, and denied the averments made in the plaint. Meanwhile, respondent No.5 not only submitted his written statement, but also filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC challenging the maintainability of the suit before a civil court. According to respondent No.5, since the land was agricultural in nature, a civil suit was not maintainable. Since it was barred under law, the plaint deserved to be returned under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. The petitioner filed a reply to the said application, and raised certain objections. However, by order dated 21.4.2014 the learned judge rejected the objections raised by the petitioner, and posted the case for final arguments on the application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Hence, this petition before this court.