Nanda @ Nand Ram Vs. Jamna Lal and ors - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1166379
CourtRajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided OnOct-01-2014
AppellantNanda @ Nand Ram
RespondentJamna Lal and ors
Excerpt:
1 s.b.civil misc. application no.10/2013 in s.b.civil regular firs.appeal no.962/2011 date of order :: 01.10.2014 hon'ble mr.justice arun bhansali mr.suresh shrimali, for the applicants mr.rakesh arora, for the respondent no.1. mr.h.s.bishnoi, for the respondent no.2. ---- this application has been filed by applicants smt. jamni devi and smt. shanti devi seeking recall of order dated 11.10.2012 passed by this court in s.b.civil regular firs.appeal no.962/2011 (nanda @ nand ram v. jamna lal & ors.).whereby, on an application filed by the parties bringing to the notice of this court that the parties have entered into compromise, the appeal was allowed in terms of the compromise. it is, inter alia, indicated in the application filed by the applicants that the respondent jamna lal had executed a sale deed in favour of the applicants in respect of agriculture land situated at village – asind by selling his 1/24 share in the property on 10.08.2010. whereafter, a suit seeking permanent injunction and declaration was filed by the appellant- nanda @ nand ram on 23.08.2010 before the sub divisional magistrate, gulabpura under section 188 of the rajasthan tenancy act, whereby, the applicants alongwith the respondent jamna lal were impleaded as parties. alongwith the suit, an application under section 212 of the rajasthan tenancy act seeking 2 temporary injunction was also filed. in the written statement filed by the respondent jamna lal, the plea raised by nanda @ nand ram in the suit was denied and it was specifically averred that the respondent jamna lal has executed sale deed in favour of the applicants. whereafter, on 15.04.2011, the appellant nanda @ nand ram filed the suit from which cfa no.962/2011 arose, before the trial court under section 77 of the registration act, 1908 seeking direction for registration of the sale deed said to have been executed by respondent jamna lal in his favour. the suit came to be rejected by the trial court noticing that the suit property had already been sold by respondent jamna lal to the applicants herein and the said document had been registered. it was also noticed that in the statement before the registering authority, defendant jamna lal had denied the execution of the document in favour of the plaintiff. against the rejection of the suit, s.b.civil regular firs.appeal no.962/2011 was filed by nanda @ nand ram. during pendency of the appeal, an application came to be filed by nanda @ nand ram, inter alia indicating that the parties have entered into compromise and the respondent jamna lal was ready to appear before the registrar, asind for registration of the sale deed. based on the application filed by the appellant nanda @ nand ram, in the presence of counsel appearing for both the parties, the following order was passed:- “an application has been filed under section 151 of the cpc bringing to the notice of this court 3 that the parties have entered into a compromise, therefore, this appeal should be allowed in terms of the compromise. a copy of the compromise has been submitted, which has been entered between jamnalal and nanda. the said compromise has also been attested by the deputy registrar (judl.).a prayer has also been made that the original sale deed should be returned to the parties so that the same may be submitted before the sub-registrar, asind. since the compromise has already been attested by the deputy registrar (judl.) the appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise. the decree shall be prepared accordingly. the registry is directed to keep a certified copy of the sale deed, while returning the original one to the parties so that the same may be submitted by them before the sub-registrar, asind.”. it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the order dted 11.10.2012 was passed by this court on account of the conspiracy hatched between the parties in that case and by concealing material facts from this court and, therefore, the order dated 11.10.2012 deserves to be recalled. a reply to the application has been filed by the appellant nanda @ nand ram, inter alia, submitting that an fir was lodged by the respondent jamna lal on 03.09.2013 at police station, asind for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 and 120b ipc against the applicants in relation to the sale deed dated 10.08.2010 got executed in favour of the applicants. it is also claimed that sale deed dated 06.08.2010 was executed by respondent jamna lal in favour of the appellant nanda @ nand ram, however, the same was not registered by 4 registering authority, which led to filing of the suit. the compromise entered into between the parties was sought to be defended on account of the fact of execution of sale deed in favour of the appellant nanda @ nand ram. however, in the reply, the facts regarding pendency of various litigations and the averments have not been denied. learned counsel for the respondents sought to defend the order passed by this court and the action of filing application regarding compromise on account of the fact that the sale deed was allegedly executed in favour of appellant nanda @ nand ram on 06.08.2010 i.e.prior to the sale deed executed in favour of the applicants on 10.08.2010 and the fact that fir was lodged by respondent jamna lal against the applicants. i have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record of the application as well as the firs.appeal. from the sequence of events as noticed hereinbefore, it is apparent that in the judgment dated 06.08.2011 challenged in s.b.civil regular firs.appeal no.962/2011, the fact that the registered sale deed dated 10.08.2010 executed by respondent jamna lal in favour of applicants was in existence was clearly noticed by the trial court, which inter alia, resulted in dismissal of the suit. the compromise said to have been entered into between the parties was not presented before the court instead an application signed by nanda @ nand ram and jamna lal was filed supported by affidavit of nanda @ nand ram only, inter alia, stating that respondent jamna lal was ready to appear 5 personally before the sub registrar for submitting the sale deed and, therefore, the appeal be allowed. no reference whatsoever was made by the parties in the firs.appeal regarding the status of the sale deed dated 10.08.2010 registered in favour of the applicants. the fact of filing of the proceedings by appellant nanda @ nand ram before the court of sub divisional magistrate and filing of written statement by respondent jamna lal were obviously not before the court while passing the order dated 11.10.2012. it is further apparent that in view of the registered sale deed in favour of the applicants and the facts brought on record by way of the present application regarding the previous litigation, which is said to be still pending before the jurisdictional revenue court, the compromise as entered between the parties could not have been arrived at and in any case no decree could have been passed by this court based on the said compromise in absence of the applicants. so far as the filing of fir by the respondent jamna lal is concerned, he was well aware of existence of the sale deed dated 10.08.2010 in favour of the applicants and had in fact filed written statement before the revenue courts supporting the said sale deed. the fir dated 03.09.2013 has been filed after the present application was presented by the applicants before this court. therefore, the filing of fir cannot be said to be of any consequence whatsoever and does not lend any credence to the case of the appellant and respondent in the firs.appeal. 6 in view of the above, application filed by the applicants seeking recall of order dated 11.10.2012 is allowed. the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by this court in s.b.civil regular firs.appeal no.962/2011 (nanda @ nand ram v. jamna lal & ors.) is hereby recall the appeal is restored to its original number. the misc. application alongwith the stay application stands disposed of accordingly. (arun bhansali).j. pks-3
Judgment:

1 S.B.CIVIL MISC.

APPLICATION NO.10/2013 IN S.B.CIVIL REGULAR FIRs.APPEAL NO.962/2011 Date of Order :: 01.10.2014 HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Mr.Suresh Shrimali, for the applicants Mr.Rakesh Arora, for the respondent No.1.

Mr.H.S.Bishnoi, for the respondent No.2.

---- This application has been filed by applicants Smt.

Jamni Devi and Smt.

Shanti Devi seeking recall of order dated 11.10.2012 passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Regular FiRs.Appeal No.962/2011 (Nanda @ Nand Ram v.

Jamna Lal & Ors.).whereby, on an application filed by the parties bringing to the notice of this Court that the parties have entered into compromise, the appeal was allowed in terms of the compromise.

It is, inter alia, indicated in the application filed by the applicants that the respondent Jamna Lal had executed a sale deed in favour of the applicants in respect of agriculture land situated at Village – Asind by selling his 1/24 share in the property on 10.08.2010.

Whereafter, a suit seeking permanent injunction and declaration was filed by the appellant- Nanda @ Nand Ram on 23.08.2010 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gulabpura under Section 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, whereby, the applicants alongwith the respondent Jamna Lal were impleaded as parties.

Alongwith the suit, an application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act seeking 2 temporary injunction was also filed.

In the written statement filed by the respondent Jamna Lal, the plea raised by Nanda @ Nand Ram in the suit was denied and it was specifically averred that the respondent Jamna Lal has executed sale deed in favour of the applicants.

Whereafter, on 15.04.2011, the appellant Nanda @ Nand Ram filed the suit from which CFA No.962/2011 arose, before the trial court under Section 77 of the Registration Act, 1908 seeking direction for registration of the sale deed said to have been executed by respondent Jamna Lal in his favour.

The suit came to be rejected by the trial court noticing that the suit property had already been sold by respondent Jamna Lal to the applicants herein and the said document had been registered.

It was also noticed that in the statement before the Registering Authority, defendant Jamna Lal had denied the execution of the document in favour of the plaintiff.

Against the rejection of the suit, S.B.Civil Regular FiRs.Appeal No.962/2011 was filed by Nanda @ Nand Ram.

During pendency of the appeal, an application came to be filed by Nanda @ Nand Ram, inter alia indicating that the parties have entered into compromise and the respondent Jamna Lal was ready to appear before the Registrar, Asind for registration of the sale deed.

Based on the application filed by the appellant Nanda @ Nand Ram, in the presence of counsel appearing for both the parties, the following order was passed:- “An application has been filed under Section 151 of the CPC bringing to the notice of this Court 3 that the parties have entered into a compromise, therefore, this appeal should be allowed in terms of the compromise.

A copy of the compromise has been submitted, which has been entered between Jamnalal and Nanda.

The said compromise has also been attested by the Deputy Registrar (Judl.).A prayer has also been made that the original sale deed should be returned to the parties so that the same may be submitted before the Sub-Registrar, Asind.

Since the compromise has already been attested by the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) the appeal is allowed in terms of the compromise.

The decree shall be prepared accordingly.

The Registry is directed to keep a certified copy of the sale deed, while returning the original one to the parties so that the same may be submitted by them before the Sub-Registrar, Asind.”

.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the order dted 11.10.2012 was passed by this Court on account of the conspiracy hatched between the parties in that case and by concealing material facts from this Court and, therefore, the order dated 11.10.2012 deserves to be recalled.

A reply to the application has been filed by the appellant Nanda @ Nand Ram, inter alia, submitting that an FIR was lodged by the respondent Jamna Lal on 03.09.2013 at Police Station, Asind for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B IPC against the applicants in relation to the sale deed dated 10.08.2010 got executed in favour of the applicants.

It is also claimed that sale deed dated 06.08.2010 was executed by respondent Jamna Lal in favour of the appellant Nanda @ Nand Ram, however, the same was not registered by 4 Registering Authority, which led to filing of the suit.

The compromise entered into between the parties was sought to be defended on account of the fact of execution of sale deed in favour of the appellant Nanda @ Nand Ram.

However, in the reply, the facts regarding pendency of various litigations and the averments have not been denied.

Learned counsel for the respondents sought to defend the order passed by this Court and the action of filing application regarding compromise on account of the fact that the sale deed was allegedly executed in favour of appellant Nanda @ Nand Ram on 06.08.2010 i.e.prior to the sale deed executed in favour of the applicants on 10.08.2010 and the fact that FIR was lodged by respondent Jamna Lal against the applicants.

I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record of the application as well as the fiRs.appeal.

From the sequence of events as noticed hereinbefore, it is apparent that in the judgment dated 06.08.2011 challenged in S.B.Civil Regular FiRs.Appeal No.962/2011, the fact that the registered sale deed dated 10.08.2010 executed by respondent Jamna Lal in favour of applicants was in existence was clearly noticed by the trial court, which inter alia, resulted in dismissal of the suit.

The compromise said to have been entered into between the parties was not presented before the court instead an application signed by Nanda @ Nand Ram and Jamna Lal was filed supported by affidavit of Nanda @ Nand Ram only, inter alia, stating that respondent Jamna Lal was ready to appear 5 personally before the Sub Registrar for submitting the sale deed and, therefore, the appeal be allowed.

No reference whatsoever was made by the parties in the fiRs.appeal regarding the status of the sale deed dated 10.08.2010 registered in favour of the applicants.

The fact of filing of the proceedings by appellant Nanda @ Nand Ram before the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate and filing of written statement by respondent Jamna Lal were obviously not before the Court while passing the order dated 11.10.2012.

It is further apparent that in view of the registered sale deed in favour of the applicants and the facts brought on record by way of the present application regarding the previous litigation, which is said to be still pending before the jurisdictional revenue court, the compromise as entered between the parties could not have been arrived at and in any case no decree could have been passed by this Court based on the said compromise in absence of the applicants.

So far as the filing of FIR by the respondent Jamna Lal is concerned, he was well aware of existence of the sale deed dated 10.08.2010 in favour of the applicants and had in fact filed written statement before the revenue courts supporting the said sale deed.

The FIR dated 03.09.2013 has been filed after the present application was presented by the applicants before this Court.

Therefore, the filing of FIR cannot be said to be of any consequence whatsoever and does not lend any credence to the case of the appellant and respondent in the fiRs.appeal.

6 In view of the above, application filed by the applicants seeking recall of order dated 11.10.2012 is allowed.

The order dated 11.10.2012 passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Regular FiRs.Appeal No.962/2011 (Nanda @ Nand Ram v.

Jamna Lal & Ors.) is hereby recall the appeal is restored to its original number.

The misc.

application alongwith the stay application stands disposed of accordingly.

(ARUN BHANSALI).J.

PKS-3