Sumitra Puri And Anr vs Bhanwar Puri And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Board of Revenue'), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

The said revision petition was filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 28.08.2015 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali Camp, Sirohi (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Appellate Authority'), whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of the petitioners under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1955') was dismissed.

By way of said appeal, the petitioners had challenged the validity of the order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Shivganj, District Sirohi (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SDO') in Revenue Misc. Case No.44/2014 (39/2012), whereby the SDO has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 212 of the Act of 1955.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a revenue suit for partition and permanent injunction before the SDO while claiming that the petitioner No.1 is wife and petitioner No.2 is daughter of Late Narendra Puri S/o Late Bhanwar Puri. It is contended that respondent No.1 - Late Bhanwar Puri was having an ancestral land in the village Badgaon, Tehsil Shivganj measuring about 15 Bighas and Late Narendra Puri was having share in the said ancestral land, but respondent No.1 - Late Bhanwar Puri and others are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the share of land of Late Narendra Puri after his death. Along with the said suit, an application for temporary injunction under Section 212 of the Act of 1955 was also filed.

After taking into consideration the material available on record as well as the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, the SDO vide order dated 04.03.2015 has rejected the said temporary injection application while observing that the petitioners have failed to prove that the land held by respondent No.1 - Late Bhanwar Puri is an ancestral land and prima facie it is proved that the said land is self-acquired property of Late Bhanwar Puri, as the same was allotted to him by the Tehsildar along with other persons. After observing this, the SDO held that no prima- facie case is made out in favour of the petitioners and balance of convenience is also not in their favour, therefore, no case is made out for grant of temporary injunction application. The order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the SDO was affirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Board of Revenue.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have prima-facie proved that the land in question is an ancestral property. It is argued that the agreement for partition and concerned letter executed between Bhanwar Puri, Raghunath Puri and Sajjan puri was produced before the SDO and upon perusal of the said documents, it is clear that the property in question is an ancestral property.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on a Will as well as the release deed executed between the family members has submitted from the perusal of those documents, it is clear that the property in question is an ancestral property. It is argued that the courts below have not taken into consideration the said documents and illegally held that it is prima facie proved that the land in question is the self-acquired property of respondent Bhanwar Puri. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that in the year 2014, Bhanwar Puri sold the disputed land to one Sarfaraz Khan by way of a registered sale deed. It is further submitted that as the courts below have failed to protect the right of the petitioners, Sarfaraz Khan had again sold the land in favour of one son of Bhanwar Puri in the year 2019 by way of another registered sale deed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is required that the respondents should be restrained from alienating the property in question till disposal of revenue suit.

In support of the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh reported in (2013) 9 SCC 419.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners and argued that the courts below have concurrently held that prima facie it is proved that the land in question is self-acquired property of Bhanwar Puri and is not the ancestral property and the said concurrent finding of the trial court is not liable to be interfered with.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties; after going through the material available on record as well as impugned orders passed by the courts below, I am of the opinion that the order impugned is not liable to be interfered with. The courts below have relied upon the allotment order issued by the Tehsildar concerned whereby, the property in question was allotted to Bhanwar Puri individually. Relying on the said document, the courts below come to the conclusion that prmia facie it is proved that the land in question was allotted to Bhanwar Puri and, therefore, the same is his self acquired property.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after taking into consideration the documents on which learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance such as partition deed etc., I am not satisfied that the petitioner has prima facie proved that the land in question is an ancestral property.

So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on which learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance is concerned, the same is of no help to the petitioners as they have prima facie failed to prove that the land in question is the ancestral property.

In view of the above, I do not find any case for interference in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.