- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This Special Appeal is directed against order of learned Single Bench dated 18.12.2010 and it arises out of an order passed on an application for appointment of Receiver under Section 212(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act over land in dispute.
(2.) Briefly slated the facts of the case are that Respondent No. 4, Smt. Gayatri filed a revenue suit for partition and injunction against appellants namely Bhanwar Lal, Mukesh Kumar and one Brij Mohan in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar, wherein it was pleaded that there is an agriculture land bearing Khasra No. 1206, measuring 0.03 hectare; Khasra No. 1207, measuring 5.57 hectares, total two Kita, measuring 5.60 hectares situated in Village Pachar, District Sikar, which was in joint kahtedari of Defendant No. 1, Bhanwar Lal and Ramsahai. Ramsahai expired and his land was mutated in the name of his legal representatives namely Gayarsilal, Brij Mohan, Shashi Kumar, Babulal and Smt. Shashikala. The plaintiff has purchased 1/10th-1/10th share from four legal representatives of late Shri Ramsahai, except share of Brij Mohan and possession of land of Brij Mohan, i.e. 1/10th share, was also handed over by Gayarsilal, one of the legal representatives of Ramsahai, therefore, she has purchased 1/2 share of the disputed land and she is in possession thereof. It was also pleaded that there was an oral partition of land between Bhanwarlal and Ramsahai and as per oral partition, Ramsahai was in possession of land towards eastern side, therefore, the plaintiff is also in possession of eastern side of land. Since defendants were interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, therefore, she filed the present suit for partition and injunction, wherein interim injunction was granted on 26.09.2005, but despite injunction order granted by the Court, the defendants were interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, therefore, it became necessary for the plaintiff to file an application under Section 212(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for appointment of receiver over the land in dispute during pendency of the suit.
(3.) The application for appointment of receiver was contested by Defendant No. 1, Bhanwar Lal by filing reply to application, wherein, it was submitted that in the land in dispute, Bhanwar Lal is having 1/3rd share, Gyarsilal, Babulal, Shashi Kumar, Brij Mohan and Shashikala, all legal heirs of deceased Ram Sahai are having 1/3rd share and Surendra Kumar, Rajendra and Mukesh Sajjan, all sons of deceased of Jagdish Prasad are having 1/3 share. Defendant No. 1 Bhanwar Lal, Ramsahai and Jagdish were joint Khatedars of land in dispute and they were having 1/3 share each in the same. After the death of Jagdish, his legal representatives are in possession of his share. The applicant/plaintiff is not in possession of any part of disputed land. It was also pleaded that vendors were not in possession of land in dispute at the time of execution of sale deed, therefore, question of possession of the purchaser over the disputed land does not arise. In the additional plea, it was pleaded that there was a joint family of Bhanwar Lal and his two brothers namely Ramsahai and Jagdish Prasad. Bhanwar Lal and his two brothers Ramsahai and Jagdish Prasad were having their joint business in Mumbai and Jalgaon and from their joint business income and funds, the land in dispute was purchased on 09.06.1966. It was also pleaded that agriculture land bearing Khasra Nos. 282,383,385 and 365 total measuring 22 Bighas and 3 Biswas was purchased on 09.06.1966 by Bhanwarlal and his two brothers Jagdish and Ramsahai out of their joint business income and funds. New khasara numbers of the above land purchased in 1966 are 1206 and 1207. Ramsahai and Jagdish both have died. The land in dispute is being cultivated by Defendant No. 1 Bhanwar Lal and Surendra, Rajendra, Mukesh, sons of Jagdish. The applicant has purchased the part of the said undivided land through registered sale deed without possession thereof, therefore, no question arises for appointment of any receiver over the disputed land. It was also pleaded that Mukesh etc. had already filed a suit in the same Court about their rights, prior to filing of the present suit by the applicant/plaintiff.;