NIRMALJIT KAUR,J. - (1.) All the above mentioned appeals shall stand decided by this common order and judgment as they have been filed against the same impugned decree and judgment dated 26.10.2012 passed by Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur, vide which the Trial Court rejected the objection petitions filed by the appellants under Order XXI, Rule 97 and 99 rent with Section 151 of the C.P.C. on the application of the plaintiff-decree holder filed under Section 11 and Order VII, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C.
(2.) The facts in short are that the respondent-decree holder had filed a suit for declaration and possession against the State of Rajasthan on 16.02.1978, in which it was stated that on the merger of the Mewar with the State of Rajasthan, a list of private properties of the Ruler of Mewar was prepared. The same was approved by the Government of India. Accordingly, the then Ruler of Mewar, the plaintiff decree-holder was held to be the owner of the property named as Devasthan Ki Kachahari. The said property was held to be part of the City Palace. On account of lack of space, the State of Rajasthan requested the respondent-decree holder to allow them to keep the possession of the Devasthan Ki Kachahari for the purpose of offices till as such time the State in able to find another place for its offices. Thus, the Government office of the Devasthan Department continued to run its office from the said premises belonging to the erstwhile Ruler. Subsequently, when the defendant-State refused to vacate the premises, the erstwhile Ruler Maharana Bhagwat Singh was forced to file the suit for declaration and possession against the State of Rajasthan. Written statement was filed by the State of Rajasthan claiming that the property belongs to the State of Rajasthan and is occupied by the Devasthan Department. Subsequently, the said written statement was amended. An additional plea was raised in the amended written statement supported by an affidavit sworn by the then Assistant Commissioner of the Devasthan Department. As per the additional plea, the suit property belonged to the deity "Shri Jawati Swaroopeshwar Ji". Thus, along with the 9 issues, which were framed prior to the amendment of the written statement, issue No. 10 was also framed, which is as under: - "10. Whether Statute of Jawanshwarupeshwar is necessary party in this suit? The said suit for possession was decreed in favour of the plaintiff Maharana Bhagwat Singh. All the issues regarding ownership of the suit property as well a the question of impleading Devasthan Department as necessary party were decided against the defendant-State of Rajasthan vide order and judgment dated 19.09.1997 and it was held that the property in question was the personal property of the plaintiff Maharana Bhagwat Singh. Civil First Appeal No. 191/1997 was filed by the State of Rajasthan against the aforementioned judgment and decree. The said appeal came to be dismissed by this Court for non-prosecution vide order and judgment dated 13.10.2000. S.B. Civil Restoration Petition No. 06034/2007 was filed against the order dated 13.10.2000 passed by this Court. The same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 05.09.2008. The State filed SLP No. 15029/2009 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The said SLP was too dismissed vide order dated 21.07.2009 and the judgment and decree dated 19.09.1997 passed by the Trial Court was affirmed. The State filed Review Petition No. 312/2010 against the order and judgment passed to the Hon'ble Court which was also dismissed on 16.02.2010.
(3.) During the pendency of the execution proceedings, on 03.07.2008 present 8 appellants and four others (total 12 objections petitions) filed objection petitions under Order XXI, Rule 97 and 99 and Section 151 of the C.P.C. one objection petition No. 38/2008 (Civil Miscellaneous) filed by one Manoj Shah was withdrawn by him as his shop was not situated within the four boundaries as described in the decree. Out of (1 applications filed under Order XXI, Rule 102 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. by the respondent-decree holder, 3 applications were allowed by the Executing Court and rejected the objection petitions vide its order dated 01.09.2008. Respondent-decree holder took possession of these three shops, which are situated on the ground floor of the building situated within the four boundaries as described in the decree. Three appeal i.e. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1338/2008 (Ganpat Lal Shah v. LRs. of Maharana Bhagwan Singh Ji), 1339/2008 (Ganpat Lal Shah v. LRs. Maharana Bhagwat Singh Ji) and 1340/2008 (Mahaveer Chand v. LRs. of Maharana Bhagwat Singh Ji) were preferred before this Court by the objection petitioners against the order dated 01.09.2008. This Court dismissed all the 3 appeals vide its order dated 05.04.2012.;