Years, R/o Bai Ka Baas, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh S/o Shree Surajbhan Singh, Aged About

Judgment

1. Surendra Singh S/o Shree Surajbhan Singh, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Dhani Baloda, Ward No. 16, Reengus, Tehsil Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan

2. Kundan Baloda S/o Shree Surendra Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Dhani Baloda, Ward No. 16, Reengus, Tehsil Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan

3. Bhagirath S/o Shree Surajbhan Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Dhani Baloda, Ward No. 16, Reengus, Tehsil Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan

----Respondents-Plaintiffs

4. Krishan Kumar S/o Banshiram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o D-49, Ramnagar, Shastrinagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

5. Kanaram S/o Banshiram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o D-49, Ramnagar, Shastrinagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

6. Ravikant S/o Banshiram, Aged About 21 Years, R/o D-49, Ramnagar, Shastrinagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

7. Sanju D/o Banshiram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o D-49, Ramnagar, Shastrinagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

8. Tara Devi D/o Bhanwar Urf Bhanwaram Urf Bhanwarlal, Aged About 68 Years, R/o D-49, Ramnagar, Shastrinagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

9. Prabhuram S/o Unknown Mother Dhapu Devi, Aged About 70 Years, R/o 125/99, Brijlal Pura, Kacchi Basti, New Sanganer Road, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan

10. Ratni Devi D/o Unknown, Mother Dhapu Devi, Aged About 54 Years, W/o Suresh, R/o Sirsi, Jaipur District Jaipur (Rajasthan)

11. Ramesh Chandra S/o Unknown, Mother Dhapu Devi, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Dhanko Ka Mohalla, Gram Bobas, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur, Rajasthan [2025:RJ-JP:32968] (2 of 6) [CR-79/2024]

12. Santosh Devi D/o Bhanwar, Aged About 65 Years, W/o Ramchandra, R/o Kalwar Road, Bhambhori, District Jaipur, Rajasthan

13. Kailash Chandra Yadav S/o Gupta Ram Yadav, R/o Mundia, Dhinoi, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur Rajasthan

14. Bhagwan Sahay Yadav S/o Kanaram Yadav, R/o Jadmo Ki Dhani, Bai Ka Baas, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur Rajasthan

15. Bhanwra Ram (Deceased) S/o Jawahararam, R/o Gram Reengus, Tehsil Shri Madhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan

16. Dollaram (Deceased) S/o Jawahara Ram, R/o Gram Reengus, Tehsil Shri Madhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan

17. Kasilash Chandra S/o Arjunlal Vaid, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Ward No. 16, Baleshwar Mohalla, Reengus, Tehsil Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan

18. Sanwarmal S/o Arjunlal Vaid, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Ward No. 16, Baleshwar Mohalla, Reengus, Tehsil Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan

19. Patwar Halka, Patwar Bhawan Reengus, Tehsil, Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan

20. Sub Registrar, Registrars Office Reengus, Tehsil Reengus District Sikar, Rajasthan

21. Bhoomidhari Tehsildaar, Tehsil Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan

22. Sdm, Office Khandela District Sikar, Rajasthan

23. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector District Sikar Rajasthan

24. Smt. Phuli Devi W/o Shri Surendra Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Dhani Balodda Wali, Ward No. 16, Reengus Tehsil Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan

25. Kuldeep S/o Shri Surendra Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Dhani Balodda Wali, Ward No. 16, Reengus Tehsil Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan

26. Ratanlal S/o Jagdish, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Dhani Balodda Wali, Ward No. 16, Reengus Tehsil Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan

27. Girdhari S/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Dhani Balodda Wali, Ward No. 16, Reengus Tehsil [2025:RJ-JP:32968] (3 of 6) [CR-79/2024] Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan

28. Harriprasad S/o Shri Moongaram, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Dhani Balodda Wali, Ward No. 16, Reengus Tehsil Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan

29. Prabhat S/o Shri Moongaram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Dhani Balodda Wali, Ward No. 16, Reengus Tehsil Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan

30. Ricchpal S/o Shri Moongaram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Dhani Balodda Wali, Ward No. 16, Reengus Tehsil Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan

31. Anil Urf Kamlesh S/o Shri Ramsingh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Dhani Balodda Wali, Ward No. 16, Reengus Tehsil Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan

32. Jagvir Singh S/o Shree Dalbeer Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Dhani Balodda Wali, Ward No. 16, Reengus Tehsil Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan

33. Raghuveer S/o Shri Mangal Chand, Aged About 74 Years, R/o Dhani Balodda Wali, Ward No. 16, Reengus Tehsil Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan

34. Mohan S/o Shree Hanmaan, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Dhani Balodda Wali, Ward No. 16, Reengus Tehsil Reengus, District Sikar, Rajasthan ----Proforma Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, Adv. Mr. Prashant Dubey, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sultan Singh Kuri, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 25/08/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant’) against the order dated

05.02.2024 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Reengus, Sikar in Civil [2025:RJ-JP:32968] (4 of 6) [CR-79/2024] Suit No.34/2023, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent Nos.1 to 3-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for declaration of ownership and declaring fraudulent mutation No. 4674 dated 27.03.2023, sale deed dated 17.04.2023 as null and void and ineffective and permanent injunction against the defendant as well as respondent Nos. 4 to 34 in which defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC but the trial Court vide order dated 05.02.2024 dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the trial court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant because the suit is related to agricultural land. By way of the suit, the plaintiff sought the relief for cancellation of the sale deed as well as the mutation entry No. 4674 dated

27.03.2023. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the plaintiffs are not the khatedar tenants of the agricultural land, therefore, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit for declaration of the khatedari right and cancellation of the mutation entered in favour of the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that without declaring khatedari right, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable but the trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by law because suit related to [2025:RJ-JP:32968] (5 of 6) [CR-79/2024] agricultural land is triable by revenue Court. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) Through Natural Guardian reported in 2019 DNJ (SC) 115; (2) Kamli Devi Vs. Rampyari & Ors. in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.280/2022 decided on 03.08.2022; (3) Vijay Singh & Anr. Vs. Buddha & Ors. reported in 2012 (4) RLW 2932 (Raj.); (4) Rukmani Vs. Bhola & Ors. reported in 2012 (4) RLW 3050 (Raj.); (5) Bagaram & Ors. Vs. Balkishan @ Balramkishan & Anr. reported in 2019(2) WLC (Raj.) UC 551; (6) Jaswant Singh Vs. Board of Rev. & Ors. in D. B. Civil Spl. Appeal No.41, 14 & 15 of 1984 decided on 22.03.1984 and (7) Lal Singh Vs. Panna Lal in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1644/2012 decided on 22.08.2016. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submits that by way of the suit, the plaintiffs sought the relief for declaration of the ownership as well as the cancellation of the sale deed

17.04.2023. It is also submitted that only civil Court had jurisdiction to try such suit. They had not claimed any tenancy right. So, the trial Court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. Therefore, the petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- [2025:RJ-JP:32968] (6 of 6) [CR-79/2024]

1. Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vs. Hemant Vithal Kamat & ors. in civil appeal No. 4665/2021 decided on 09.08.2021.

2. Sejal Glass Ltd. Vs. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. in civil appeal No. 10802/2017 connected with civil appeal No. 10803/2017 decided on 21.08.2017.

3. Sri Biswanath Banik & Anr. Vs. Smt. Sulanga Bose & Ors. in civil appeal No. 1848/2022 decided on 14.03.2022. 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 the suit filed by the plaintiffs is related to agricultural land and the plaintiffs are not khatedar tenant of the agricultural land. By way of the suit, the plaintiffs had not sought any relief for declaration of khatedari right. They sought the relief for cancellation of the mutation entry dated

27.03.2023 as well as cancellation of the sale deed 17.04.2023. In my considered opinion, without declaring themselves khatedar of the disputed land, they had no right to file the suit for cancellation of the sale deed. So, the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. So, the petition filed by the defendant deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the defendant is allowed; the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed being barred by jurisdiction. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir /73