- (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 7-2-2007 passed by the Board of Revenue Rajasthan Ajmer (herein after 'the Board') upholding the judgment and decree dated 31-12-2004 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority Jaipur and the judgment and decree dated 17-4-2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Chomu decreeing the suit laid by Gopal for declaration and permanent injunction.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record of the writ petition. The three courts below have concurrently held that a registered gift deed dated 23-1-1978 was executed by Mangu in favour of Gopal. It has been found by the courts below that in respect of the said registered gift-deed dated 23-1-1978, in a proceeding on an interim application taken in an earlier suit before the SDO Amer by Mangu's daughter Smt.Sedi on 11-4-1978 for cancellation of the registered gift-deed, Mangu had filed an affidavit before the court admitting to the execution of the gift-deed dated 23-1-1978 in favour of Gopal. Further Smt.Rudi had also admitted to the said gift-deed in favour of Gopal by way of filing an affidavit before the court. It was recorded by the courts on admission of Mangu and Smt.Rudi that following the gift-deed Gopal was in possession of the property. The application for temporary injunction (46/1978) filed by Smt.Sedi against Gopal was dismissed by the SDO Amer on 30-10-1979. Even though the suit earlier laid by Smt.Sedi was subsequently dismissed in default, yet the factum and consequence of admission by Mangu and Smt.Rudi in judicial proceedings was inexorable. The court below have held that there was thus no dispute with regard to Mangu being khatedar of land in issue, which was gifted to Gopal by way of registered gift-deed dated 23-1-1978. The gift was legal and valid and owing to the gift-deed in favour of Gopal, Mangu's daughters Smt.Sedi and Smt.Rudi had no right of ownership in any part of the property of Mangu gifted by him to Gopal. The Board has held that consequently the sale deed dated 17-10-1989 executed by Smt.Sedi and Smt.Rudi in favour of the petitioners was without authority of law, non-est qua Gopal who was entitled to a declaration of his khatedari in law and consequently to a permanent injunction against the defendants in the suit-now petitioners herein the writ petition. In my considered opinion the orders passed by the courts below are neither perverse, nor suffer from any misdirection of law. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out any argument for this court to interfere with the orders of the courts below. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the courts below and the writ petition is thus liable to be dismissed. At this stage counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners who are purchasers of land from Smt.Sedi and Smt. Rudi have laid a suit for declaration, cancellation, and annulment of the registered gift-deed dated 23-1-1978 executed by Mangu in favour of Gopal which suit is now pending before the court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Chomu. It is prayed that the dismissal of the writ petition should not adversely affect the outcome of the said suit. In my considered opinion the issue of cancellation of the registered gift-deed dated 23-1-1978 is not before this court. Consequently it is not for this court to make any comment on the proceedings laid for cancellation/ annulment of the gift deed dated 23-1-1978 and the suit will be no doubt be decided on its own merits as per law. The writ petition and stay application are dismissed accordingly. ;