Pokhar Singh Adopted S/o Mangej Singh vs Board of Revenue and Others

Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Plaintiff-petitioner as well as non-petitioners filed three suits in the trial court in respect of the disputed land along-with applications for temporary injunction. The trial court rejected the application of the plaintiff-petitioner and allowed the applications filed by the non-petitioners. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed three appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which were dismissed and thereafter three revision petitions, preferred by the petitioner, were also dismissed by the Revenue Board. Being aggrieved with the same, the plaintiff-petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer that the non-petitioners may be restrained from interfering in the possession of the petitioner and further not to alienate the disputed property during the pendency of the suit.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the recorded tenant of the disputed land, therefore, all the courts below have committed an illegality in not granting injunction in his favour and thus the orders passed by the courts below are liable to be set-aside and the injunction, as prayed for by the plaintiff, should be granted in his favour.

Learned Counsel for the non-petitioners contended that all the three courts below have recorded a concurrent finding in favour of the non-petitioners. The injunction application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was dismissed and the application of the non-petitioners for temporary injunction was allowed by the trial court. Thereafter the plaintiff preferred three appeals and three revision petitions, which were dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Revenue Board, both. It is further contended on their behalf that the petitioner has preferred only one writ petition whereas three writ petitions ought to have been preferred as three revision petitions were disposed of by the Revenue Board by the impugned order, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties and examined the impugned judgments passed by all the three courts below.

The learned trial court rejected the application for injunction filed by the petitioner and allowed the application for injunction filed by the non-petitioners. The said order has been upheld by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the Revenue Board. The Revenue Board, vide its impugned order, has observed that after the death of Mangej Singh, his widow Jara Kanwar should have got 1/2 share in the disputed land and the petitioner was not legally entitled to be recorded as the sole khatedar of the disputed land belonging to Mangej Singh, but he also fraudulently deprived Smt. Jara Kanwar from her due share in the disputed property. The Revenue Board also observed that the conduct of the petitioner in murdering Jara Kanwar, which has been found proved in the judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, further lends support that his adoption deed is questionable.

After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and further that all the three courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the non-petitioners are in possession of the disputed land and further that the petitioner was not entitled to get the entire land mutated in his own name depriving Smt. Jara Kanwar, the wife of Mangej Singh, of her due share, is also questionable in the present case. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by all the three courts below.

There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.