MAHAVEERYA Vs. MURARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents have entered as caveator and have also filed their reply.

(2.) Having heard both the counsel, this Court finds that the petitioners are assailing the orders passed by the SDO, Hindaun dated 07.02.2017 and the order passed on the appeal dated 22.05.2018 and the order passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision Petition dated 21.06.2018 whereby both the appellate courts have rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the vacation of the interim order passed earlier in favour of the petitioners, by the SDO. The main gamut of the arguments of the petitioners is that while both the petitioners and the respondents are co-sharers to the property of the land in question, and there has not been a partition by meets and bounds, none of the co-sharers would be allowed to construct in any part of the property with the consent of the other co-sharers. It is his submission that the petitioners have filed a suit for partition and for dividing the property by meets and bounds before the Court of SDO Hindaun City wherein an interim order of status quo had been granted vide order dated 06.01.2017. On 07.02.2017, the status-quo order was vacated mentioning therein that there was an interim order passed by the Civil Court and therefore the status-quo order could not be continued. The appeal was preferred by them before the Revenue Appellate Authority who vide order dated 22.05.2018 has maintained the impugned order passed by the SDO on 07.02.2017 and the revision petition preferred before the Board has also been dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although there was an oral partition between the petitioners and the respondents relating to the land in question, however departing from the oral partition, the respondents have taken possession of the valuable property situate on main road which is adjacent to the road and are constructing house therein, and therefore, the petitioners had to approach the SDO for partition by meets and bounds. It is his submission, therefore, that in terms of Sec. 211 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the respondents be restrained from making any construction.