Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.) v. Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar on 18 Aug 2025

Judgment

1. Shravan S/o Buddha, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

2. Prahlad S/o Buddha, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

3. Sundari W/o Buddha, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

4. Kamli D/o Buddha, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

5. Dholi D/o Buddha, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

6. Bhagwan S/o Murli, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

Shriram S/o Murli, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

8. Urmila D/o Murli, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

9. Kali D/o Murli, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

10. Hansa D/o Murli, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

11. Leela W/o Murli, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

12. Khyali S/o Chota, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

13. Jansi S/o Chota, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

14. Mevli W/o Chota, Aged About 77 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

15. Keshnati D/o Chota, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.) [2025:RJ-JP:31834] (2 of 5) [CR-40/2022]

16. Devisahai S/o Ramphool, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

17. Vishram S/o Ramphool., R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

18. Kamli W/o Ramphool, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

19. Heeralal S/o Jagdish, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

20. Kalu S/o Jagdish, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

21. Namonarayan S/o Jagdish, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

22. Kamli W/o Jagdish, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.) Respondents/Plaintiffs

23. Rampyari W/o Kajod, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

24. Sitaram S/o Late Ramlal, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

25. Santo D/o Late Ramlal, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

26. Urmila D/o Late Ramlal, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

27. Guddi D/o Late Ramlal, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

28. Badri S/o Kajod, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

29. Gopal S/o Kajod, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

30. Kali D/o Kajod, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

31. Kaushaliya W/o Kishan, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh,

32. Rajendra S/o Kishan, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Khoh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

33. Mausami D/o Kishan Lal, W/o Mahesh Chand, R/o Village Ratangarh, Pala, Teshsil Malakheda, (Alwar) [2025:RJ-JP:31834] (3 of 5) [CR-40/2022]

34. Guddi D/o Kishan Lal W/o Dinesh Chand, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Ratangarh, Pala, Tehsil Malakheda, (Alwar.)

35. Kamod D/o Kishan Lal W/o Ramkesh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Manpura, Tehsil Sikrai, (Dausa.)

36. Nayab-Tehsildar Cum Sub-Registrar, Tehla, (Alwar) ---Proforma-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 18/08/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 27.01.2022 passed by the Civil Judge, Rajgarh, District Alwar (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.34/167/2021, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11(D) read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondents-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for declaring that Kajoda was not the adopted son of deceased Panchaya, declaring 2/3rd share in the disputed property and permanent injunction in which the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(D) read with Section CPC but the trial court vide order dated 27.01.2022 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. [2025:RJ-JP:31834] (4 of 5) [CR-40/2022] Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that a bare perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiffs sought the relief for declaring khatedari rights in 2/3rd share of the disputed property. Admittedly the suit property is agricultural land. Therefore, as per Section 207(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the suit is triable only by the Revenue Court. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed, order dated 27.01.2022 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) Karan Singh Chouhan & Ors. V/s. Manu Bal Sikshan Sansthan, Soorsagar Jodhpur & Ors. reported in 2018(2) DNJ (Raj.) 676; (2) Hastimal & Ors. V/s. Pushpa Devi (Mrs.) & Ors. reported in 2020(4) DNJ (Raj.) 1108; (3) Vikas Sharma V/s. Kamlesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No.22/2023 decided on

04.08.2025; (4) Maman Singh V/s. Rohitash Singh & Ors. in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No..244/2022 decided on 29.04.2025; (5) Pyarelal V/s. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) through Natural Guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania & Ors. Reported in (2019) 3 SCC 692 Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaring that Kajoda was not the adopted son of deceased-Panchaya and such a declaration can [2025:RJ-JP:31834] (5 of 5) [CR-40/2022] only be granted by the civil court. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Single Bench of Principal Seat At Jodhpur in S. B. Civil Revision Petition No.229/2023 decided on 29.07.2025. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that by way of the present suit, the plaintiffs want to declare that Kajoda was not the adopted son of deceased Panchaya. In my considered opinion, such a declaration can only be granted by the Civil Court and not by the Revenue Court. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed. Gourav/44 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J