Rekhraj v. Additional District Judge

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN ATJODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1419/2019 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Rekhraj S/o Shri Madanlal Ji Kachhawa, Aged About 42Years, By Caste Mali R/o House No. 82, Income Tax Colony, Imartiya Bera, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).Sumer Singh S/o Shri Madanlal Ji Kachhawa, Aged About41 Years, By Caste Mali R/o House No. 82, Income TaxColony, Imartiya Bera, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).Manmohan S/o Shri Madanlal Ji Kachhawa, Aged About38 Years, By Caste Mali R/o House No. 82, Income TaxColony, Imartiya Bera, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Raj.). ----Petitioners Versus Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur MetropolitanRoshanlal Kachhawa S/o Shri Madanlal Ji Kachhawa, ByCaste Mali R/o House No. 82, Income Tax Colony,Imartiya Bera, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Raj.). Smt. Kalawati W/o Shri Roshanlal Kachhawa, By Caste Mali R/o House No. 82, Income Tax Colony, Imartiya Bera, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Raj.). State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Jodhpur. Police Commissioner, Police Commissionerate, Jodhpur. Smt. Choti Devi W/o Late Sh. Madanlal Kachhawa, By Caste Mali R/o Maliyon Ki Gali, Udaimandir, Jodhpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Mehta For Respondent(s): Mr. OP Boob JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA 07/08/2019 Judgment The present writ petition is directed against the order dated7.1.2019 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No.3, JodhpurMetropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the learned trialCourt), vide which petitioners’ application dated 4.7.2018 filedunder Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, hasbeen rejected. Briefly narrated the facts appertain to the present writpetition are that the plaintiffs (petitioners herein) filed the suit forpossession on the basis of a gift deed dated 14.3.2012, executedin their favour by late Madan Lal Kachhawaha. In the suit so filedby the plaintiffs, the defendants having possession of the propertyfiled a counter claim seeking declaration of ownership assertingthat they have procured rights, interest and title in the propertyby virtue of a sale deed dated 5.4.2012, which has been executedin their favour in furtherance of an agreement to sell dated1.12.2005 and sought protection of their possession. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issuescame to be framed by the learned trial Court on 2.4.2018: “1-vk;k Lo- Jh enuyky th us oknxzLr Hkw[kaM la- 82 ijo’kZ 1989 esa ry eafty dk fuekZ.k dk;Z djok;k ,oa o’kZ2002 esa cSad ls _.k izkIr dj izFke eafty dk fuekZ.kdk;Z djok;k \--- oknhx.k 2-vk;k oknxzLr edku ij LVsV cSad vkQ bafM;k flVhczkap tks/kiqj ls tks _.k fy;k x;k Fkk] mldk HkqxrkuLo- Jh enuyky }kjk o’kZ 2010 rd fd;k x;k \ --- oknhx.k 3- vk;k Lo- Jh enuyky us oknhx.k ds i{k esa fnukad 14-3-12 dks fx¶V MhM fu’ikfnr dj jftLVMZ djok nhvkSj oknxzLr lEiw.kZ tk;nkn dk dCtk oknhx.k dkslqiqnZ dj fn;k rc ls oknhx.k oknxzLr tk;nkn dsekfyd gS \--- oknhx.k 4-vk;k izfroknh la- 1 fnukad 15-3-12 dks oknxzLr edkuds rkys rksM+dj izFke eafty ij dkfct gks x;k \ds rkys rksM+dj izFke eafty ij dkfct gks x;k \ --- oknhx.k 5-vk;k Lo- Jh enuyky }kjk izfroknh la- 1 o 2 ds i{kesa fu’ikfnr fd;s gq, nLrkost fnukad 1-12-05 QthZ ,oadwVjfpr gS tks izfroknh la- 1 us fo”okl dk nq:i;ksxdjrs gq, Lo- Jh enuyky ls cuok;s rFkk fnukad 1-12-05 dks fu’ikfnr cspku bdjkjukek lk{; esa xzkg~; ughagS\--- oknhx.kesa fu’ikfnr fd;s gq, nLrkost fnukad 1-12-05 QthZ ,oadwVjfpr gS tks izfroknh la- 1 us fo”okl dk nq:i;ksxdjrs gq, Lo- Jh enuyky ls cuok;s rFkk fnukad 1-12-05 dks fu’ikfnr cspku bdjkjukek lk{; esa xzkg~; ughagS\--- oknhx.k 6-vk;k oknhx.k izfroknhx.k ds fo:) LFkk;h fu’ks/kkKkizkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS \izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS \ --- oknhx.k 4-vk;k izfroknh la- 1 fnukad 15-3-12 dks oknxzLr edkuds rkys rksM+dj izFke eafty ij dkfct gks x;k \ds rkys rksM+dj izFke eafty ij dkfct gks x;k \ --- oknhx.k 5-vk;k Lo- Jh enuyky }kjk izfroknh la- 1 o 2 ds i{kesa fu’ikfnr fd;s gq, nLrkost fnukad 1-12-05 QthZ ,oadwVjfpr gS tks izfroknh la- 1 us fo”okl dk nq:i;ksxdjrs gq, Lo- Jh enuyky ls cuok;s rFkk fnukad 1-12-05 dks fu’ikfnr cspku bdjkjukek lk{; esa xzkg~; ughagS\--- oknhx.kesa fu’ikfnr fd;s gq, nLrkost fnukad 1-12-05 QthZ ,oadwVjfpr gS tks izfroknh la- 1 us fo”okl dk nq:i;ksxdjrs gq, Lo- Jh enuyky ls cuok;s rFkk fnukad 1-12-05 dks fu’ikfnr cspku bdjkjukek lk{; esa xzkg~; ughagS\--- oknhx.k 6-vk;k oknhx.k izfroknhx.k ds fo:) LFkk;h fu’ks/kkKkizkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS \izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS \ --- oknhx.k 7-vk;k Lo- Jh enuyky us oknxzLr edku dk iw.kZizfrQy izkIr djus ds i”pkr izfroknh la- 1 ds i{k esafnukad 1-12-05 dks cspku bdjkjukek o olh;rukek ,oaizfroknh la- 2 ds i{k esa vke eq[R;kjukek fu’ikfnrfd;k \ --- izfroknhx.kvk;k Lo- Jh enuyky us oknxzLr edku dk iw.kZizfrQy izkIr djus ds i”pkr izfroknh la- 1 ds i{k esafnukad 1-12-05 dks cspku bdjkjukek o olh;rukek ,oaizfroknh la- 2 ds i{k esa vke eq[R;kjukek fu’ikfnrfd;k \ --- izfroknhx.k 8-vk;k Lo- Jh enuyky }kjk izfroknh la- 1 o 2 ds i{kesa fu’ikfnr nLrkostkr ij oknh la- 2 o 3 us lgh ekursgq, lgefr ds rkSj ij lk[ksa Mkyh ,oa oknhx.k mijksDrnLrkostkr dks pqukSrh nsus ls ,LVksIM (ESTOPPED)gS \ --- izfroknhx.kesa fu’ikfnr nLrkostkr ij oknh la- 2 o 3 us lgh ekursgq, lgefr ds rkSj ij lk[ksa Mkyh ,oa oknhx.k mijksDrnLrkostkr dks pqukSrh nsus ls ,LVksIM (ESTOPPED)gS \ --- izfroknhx.k 9-vk;k Lo- Jh enuyky }kjk izfroknh la- 1 o 2 ds i{kesa fu’ikfnr nLrkostkr ds i”pkr mudks oknhx.k ds i{kesa fx¶V MhM jftLVMZ djokus o dCtk lqiqnZ djus dkdksbZ vf/kdkj ugha Fkk \ --- izfroknhx.kesa fu’ikfnr nLrkostkr ds i”pkr mudks oknhx.k ds i{kesa fx¶V MhM jftLVMZ djokus o dCtk lqiqnZ djus dkdksbZ vf/kdkj ugha Fkk \ --- izfroknhx.k 10-vk;k izfroknh la- 1 o 2 }kjk tokcnkos esa of.kZr rF;kasds vuqlkj oknhx.k dksbZ lgk;rk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjhugha gS \ds vuqlkj oknhx.k dksbZ lgk;rk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjhugha gS \ --- izfroknhx.k 11-vk;k Lo- Jh enuyky }kjk izfroknh la- 2 ds i{k esafu’ikfnr vke eq[R;kjukek ds vk/kkj ij izfroknh la- 2ds i{k esa fnukad 5-4-12 dks foØ; i= jftLVMZ gks pqdkgS ,oa izfroknh la- 1 foØ; i= o olh;r ds vk/kkj ijoknxzLr edku dk vdsyk ekfyd gS rFkk oknhx.k ls fookfnr ifjlj dk dCtk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ ---- izfroknhx.k 12-”vuqrks’k \ After framing of the issues on 4.7.2018, the petitioners filedan application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of CivilProcedure and prayed that additional issues be framed in light oftheir pleadings, particularly, keeping their stand into considerationthat since Late Madan Lal Kachhawa had gifted the property byway of registered gift deed dated 14.3.2012 to the plaintiffs, theright flowing from the agreement to sell dated 5.4.2012 hasextinguished and, thereafter, the power of attorney holder couldnot execute the sale deed in favour of the defendants. It was alsoprayed that an issue be also framed, in view of the fact that “asuit for declaration is not maintainable simply on the basis of anagreement to sell”. The petitioners’ application aforesaid under Order XIV Rule 5of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the learnedtrial Court, vide its order dated 7.1.2019, inter alia, observing thatthe issues nos.9 and 11 already framed by the trial Court takescare of the plaintiffs’ concern. While rejecting petitioners’application, the learned trial Court has made a reference of theorder dated 14.3.2012, passed by this Court in proceedingsemanating from rejection of his application under Order VII Rule11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed with respect to defendants’counter claim. The petitioners’ application aforesaid under Order XIV Rule 5of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected by the learnedtrial Court, vide its order dated 7.1.2019, inter alia, observing thatthe issues nos.9 and 11 already framed by the trial Court takescare of the plaintiffs’ concern. While rejecting petitioners’application, the learned trial Court has made a reference of theorder dated 14.3.2012, passed by this Court in proceedingsemanating from rejection of his application under Order VII Rule11 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed with respect to defendants’counter claim. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner oopuning theorder under consideration argued that the petitioners’ basic standbefore the learned trial Court has been that they are having validtitle, interest and right in the property in furtherance of a registered gift deed executed by late Madan Lal Kachhawa, theowner of the property and hence, their title and interest issuperior to the rights of the defendants, which was based on anagreement to sell. He admitted that though a sale deed has been executed infavour of the defendants by the power of attorney holder Smt.Kalawati W/o Roshan Lal (respondent no.3 herein), but the samecannot be given credence over the valid title in favour of thepetitioners conferred by owner of the property viz., late Sh. MadanLal Kachhawa. He further argued that the counter claim filed bythe defendants – respondents was essentially a suit for declarationof title based upon agreement to sell, which is impermissible inthe eyes of law, inasmuch as an immovable property can betransferred only by way of registered document, and not by way ofagreement to sell. On the other hand, Mr. Boob, learned counsel for therespondents supported the order passed by the learned trial courtand contended that the issues nos.9 and 11 as framed by thelearned trial court takes into its sweep all the question involved inthe case, including the pleadings and concern of the petitioners.He further argued that in the teeth of the finding recorded by thisCourt in its order dated 14.3.2012, the plaintiffs- petitionerscontention is untenable, inasmuch as this Court has observed thatthe gift deed, which is gratuitous in nature, does not confer anyright upon the plaintiffs. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused thematerial available on record. Looking to the pleadings of the parties, more particularly inview of the fact that the owner of the property namely, late Sh. Madan Lal Kachhawa had transferred the property to the plaintiffs– petitioners, vide a registered gift deed dated 14.3.2012, theissue raised by the plaintiffs – petitioners becomes of a significantimportance. The facts are not in dispute that the sale deed in favour ofthe defendant no.1 has been executed on 5.4.2012, i.e., afterexecution of the sale deed in plaintiffs’ favour on 14.3.2012. Thatapart, the said sale deed had been executed by the wife of thedefendant no.1, Smt. Kalawati (defendant no.2) being a person inwhose favour a power of attorney had been executed alongwiththe agreement to sell dated 1.12.2005. The facts highlighted hereinabove goes to the root of thematter and the learned trial court is required to pronounce uponthese issues raised by the plaintiffs. As far as issues nos.9 and 11 as framed by the learned trialcourt are concerned, they simply take into account one side of thestory, inasmuch as these issues will bring to fore only as towhether the gift deed dated 14.3.2012 in favour of the plaintiffswas valid or not and/or as to whether the owner of the propertylate Madan Lal Kachhawa had power to gift the property to theplaintiffs in the teeth of the agreement to sell dated 1.12.2005. The facts highlighted hereinabove goes to the root of thematter and the learned trial court is required to pronounce uponthese issues raised by the plaintiffs. As far as issues nos.9 and 11 as framed by the learned trialcourt are concerned, they simply take into account one side of thestory, inasmuch as these issues will bring to fore only as towhether the gift deed dated 14.3.2012 in favour of the plaintiffswas valid or not and/or as to whether the owner of the propertylate Madan Lal Kachhawa had power to gift the property to theplaintiffs in the teeth of the agreement to sell dated 1.12.2005. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinionthat the learned trial court has seriously erred in rejectingpetitioners’ application dated 4.7.2018 filed for framing additionalissues, under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.The impugned order suffers from manifest error of law andwrongful exercise of jurisdiction, so vested in the court. The order dated 7.1.2019 is, therefore, quashed and setaside. The following additional issues are framed as issues nos. 12 and 13 and issue no.12 as framed by the learned trial court shall be substituted as issue no.14: “¼12½ vk;k cspku bdjkjukek fnukad 1-12-2005 ds vk/kkj ij okafNr ?kks"k.kkdk vuqrks"k iks"k.kh; gS\dk vuqrks"k iks"k.kh; gS\ ¼13½vk;k enuykyk }kjk c['kh’kukek fnukad 14-03-2-012 ds fu"iknu dsmijkUr] izfroknh la[;k&2 dks vius gd esa vke eqf[r;kj ukes ds vk/kkj ijizfroknh la[;k&1 dks oknxzLr lEifr ds ckcr fodz; i= fnukad 5-4-2012fu"iknu rFkk iath;u djokus dk vf/kdkj Fkk\” The writ petition is allowed accordingly. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly. 136-CPGoyal/- (DINESH MEHTA),J