Gumat Town Badi Tehasil Badi District Dholpur v. Babulal S/o
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Judgment
1. Babulal S/o Shri Haripal, R/o Mohalla Naya Bans Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur.
2. Batti S/o Shri Haripal, R/o Naya Bans, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur (Died During Suit) Through His Legal Representative- 2/1. Rambeti W/o Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. 2/2. Sharada W/o Late Ramji, Nati Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur.
2/3. Deshraj S/o Shri Ramji, Nati Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. 2/4. Harichand S/o Shri Ramji, Nati Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. 2/5. Hotam S/oshri Ramji, Nati Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. 2/6. Munni D/o Shri Ramji, Natini Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. 2/7. Guddi D/o Shri Ramji, Natini Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. 2/8. Suneeta D/o Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. 2/9. Munni D/o Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. 2/10. Gudiya D/o Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. [2025:RJ-JP:31368] (2 of 5) [CSA-52/2025] 2/11. Rajandei D/o Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pallavi Mehta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 13/08/2025 This Civil Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Badi, District Dholpur in Civil Regular Appeal (CIS) No.12/2017, whereby the first appeal filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed and affirmed the order and decree dated 20.01.2017 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Badi, District Dholpur in Original Civil Case No.17/2013, by which the application filed by the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants in which it was stated that disputed property is a house, which is in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and situated at Mohalla Gumat Kasba Badi, District Dholpur. In the eastern side of this house there is a public way, in the western side house of Jugurua, in the northern side house of Kallu Teli and Jalaluddin and in the southern side house of Horilal Nai are situated. It was also stated [2025:RJ-JP:31368] (3 of 5) [CSA-52/2025] that house in question is situated in Khasra No.1089 Rakba 7 Biswa at town Badi and initially father of the defendants Haripal was the owner of the property. Haripal had executed a sale deed on 19.12.1979 in favour of Horilal Nai and sold 1/3rd share of above Khasra. After that, Horilal Nai constructed house and living there. After that, Haripal sold remaining 2/3rd part of the land to Munni Devi, Rajendra Singh, Brijendra Singh through registered sale deed dated 11.06.1981. After that, those persons have executed a sale deeds in favour of Gokula, Kashiram and Puran and sold their share to them. Gokula, Kashiram and Puran also sold the property to Subrati and Aaseen through registered sale deed dated 29.09.1999. Subarati and Aaseen sold the property to the plaintiff. So, registered sale deed dated 15.10.2005. Father of the defendants had no share in the disputed property but defendants wanted to dispossess the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff filed the present suit. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that disputed property is agricultural property. So, present suit is not maintainable. Defendants also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The trial court vide order and decree dated 20.01.2017 allowed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said order and decree dated 20.01.2017. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.2024 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the vide order and decree dated 20.01.2017. [2025:RJ-JP:31368] (4 of 5) [CSA-52/2025] Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial court as well as appellate court committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that plaintiff filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC that although the disputed land was not converted but it has come under the Abadi land. Plaintiff submitted photographs of construction of the houses, shops etc. and also annexed Water bill, Ration card and Aadhar card which show that disputed land is used for residential house. So, finding of the trial court as well as appellate court that present suit is not maintainable on account of agricultural land, is not tenable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that conversion of the land is not necessary while deciding the suit and rather use of the land is to be considered. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that if the court comes to the conclusion that present suit is barred by jurisdiction, then suit ought to have been returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Tota Ram & Ors. Vs. Deep Chand & Ors. reported in 2013 (4) DNJ (Raj.) 1533. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submits that trial court as well as appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that disputed land is agricultural land. A bare reading of the plaint reveals that the said land was not converted for residential purposes. So, civil court had no jurisdiction to try it. Documents filed by the plaintiff should not be considered at the [2025:RJ-JP:31368] (5 of 5) [CSA-52/2025] initial stage of the suit. So, present appeal filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants. It is an admitted position that disputed land is agricultural land and said land was never converted. So, in my considered opinion, trial court as well as appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that civil court had no jurisdiction to try the matter regarding permanent injunction of the agriculture land. So, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal as well as application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the plaintiff deserve to be dismissed. The Civil Second Appeal as well as application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the plaintiff stand dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to return the suit filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. Jatin /43 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
2/3. Deshraj S/o Shri Ramji, Nati Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. 2/4. Harichand S/o Shri Ramji, Nati Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. 2/5. Hotam S/oshri Ramji, Nati Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. 2/6. Munni D/o Shri Ramji, Natini Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. 2/7. Guddi D/o Shri Ramji, Natini Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. 2/8. Suneeta D/o Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. 2/9. Munni D/o Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. 2/10. Gudiya D/o Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. [2025:RJ-JP:31368] (2 of 5) [CSA-52/2025] 2/11. Rajandei D/o Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pallavi Mehta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 13/08/2025 This Civil Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant- plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Badi, District Dholpur in Civil Regular Appeal (CIS) No.12/2017, whereby the first appeal filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed and affirmed the order and decree dated 20.01.2017 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Badi, District Dholpur in Original Civil Case No.17/2013, by which the application filed by the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants in which it was stated that disputed property is a house, which is in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and situated at Mohalla Gumat Kasba Badi, District Dholpur. In the eastern side of this house there is a public way, in the western side house of Jugurua, in the northern side house of Kallu Teli and Jalaluddin and in the southern side house of Horilal Nai are situated. It was also stated [2025:RJ-JP:31368] (3 of 5) [CSA-52/2025] that house in question is situated in Khasra No.1089 Rakba 7 Biswa at town Badi and initially father of the defendants Haripal was the owner of the property. Haripal had executed a sale deed on 19.12.1979 in favour of Horilal Nai and sold 1/3rd share of above Khasra. After that, Horilal Nai constructed house and living there. After that, Haripal sold remaining 2/3rd part of the land to Munni Devi, Rajendra Singh, Brijendra Singh through registered sale deed dated 11.06.1981. After that, those persons have executed a sale deeds in favour of Gokula, Kashiram and Puran and sold their share to them. Gokula, Kashiram and Puran also sold the property to Subrati and Aaseen through registered sale deed dated 29.09.1999. Subarati and Aaseen sold the property to the plaintiff. So, registered sale deed dated 15.10.2005. Father of the defendants had no share in the disputed property but defendants wanted to dispossess the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff filed the present suit. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that disputed property is agricultural property. So, present suit is not maintainable. Defendants also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The trial court vide order and decree dated 20.01.2017 allowed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said order and decree dated 20.01.2017. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.2024 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and affirmed the vide order and decree dated 20.01.2017. [2025:RJ-JP:31368] (4 of 5) [CSA-52/2025] Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial court as well as appellate court committed an error in dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that plaintiff filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC that although the disputed land was not converted but it has come under the Abadi land. Plaintiff submitted photographs of construction of the houses, shops etc. and also annexed Water bill, Ration card and Aadhar card which show that disputed land is used for residential house. So, finding of the trial court as well as appellate court that present suit is not maintainable on account of agricultural land, is not tenable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that conversion of the land is not necessary while deciding the suit and rather use of the land is to be considered. Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that if the court comes to the conclusion that present suit is barred by jurisdiction, then suit ought to have been returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Tota Ram & Ors. Vs. Deep Chand & Ors. reported in 2013 (4) DNJ (Raj.) 1533. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and submits that trial court as well as appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that disputed land is agricultural land. A bare reading of the plaint reveals that the said land was not converted for residential purposes. So, civil court had no jurisdiction to try it. Documents filed by the plaintiff should not be considered at the [2025:RJ-JP:31368] (5 of 5) [CSA-52/2025] initial stage of the suit. So, present appeal filed by the plaintiff being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the defendants. It is an admitted position that disputed land is agricultural land and said land was never converted. So, in my considered opinion, trial court as well as appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that civil court had no jurisdiction to try the matter regarding permanent injunction of the agriculture land. So, no substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present appeal. So, the present appeal as well as application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the plaintiff deserve to be dismissed. The Civil Second Appeal as well as application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the plaintiff stand dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to return the suit filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. Jatin /43 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J