Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lrs. Of Late Sanwarmal vs Smt. Seeta Devi (2025:Rj-Jd:8168) on 10 February, 2025
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:8168]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19263/2024
1. Lrs. Of Late Sanwarmal Sharma:-
1/1 Mukesh S/o Late Sawarmal Sharma, by caste Brahmin,
Aged About 49 Years, R/o Paota C Road, Teesri Gali,
Jodhpur.
1/2 Sulochana D/o Late Sawarmal Sharma, by caste Brahmin,
Aged About 68 Years, R/o Paota C Road, Teesri Gali,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Seeta Devi W/o Shri Ramgopal Ji, Daughter Of Late
Shri Bhagwandas Ji, R/o Village Balara, Laxmangarh District
Sikar.
2. Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Late Sh. Bhagwandas Ji Sharma,
R/o Caf-17, Highcourt Colony, Jodhpur.
3. Late Sh. Sawarmal Sharma, Through Legal Representative -
3/1 Sarita D/o Late Sh. Sawarmal Sharma.
3/2 Poonam D/o Late Sh. Sawarmal Sharma.
Respondents No.3/1 & 3/2 are by caste Brahmin, R/o Paota
C Road, Teesri Gali, Jodhpur.
6. Ramnarayan Sharma S/o Late Sh. Bhagwandas Ji Sharma,
R/o Plot No. 60, Imartiya Bera, Paota C Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K.Bhaiya.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Mehta through VC.
Mr. V.D.Gaur.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
Reportable
10/02/2025
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
[2025:RJ-JD:8168] (2 of 5) [CW-19263/2024]
The present writ petition has been filed against the order
dated 24.10.2024 passed by Additional District Judge No.6,
Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur in Original Civil Suit No.51/2013
(N.C.V. No.14935/2014) titled as "Sita Devi V/s Sanwarmal"
whereby the application preferred by late Sanwarmal Sharma for
referring the matter to the revenue court on the issues framed on
the agricultural land has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that plaintiffs
preferred a suit seeking decree of partition, which is pending
consideration before the Civil Court. He submits that as per the
issues framed by the learned trial court, one of the issues pertains
to the partition of the land, which is agriculture in nature. Learned
counsel submits that the issue with respect to the partition of
agriculture land is required to be sent to the revenue court for its
adjudication. To buttress his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioners has relied upon the judgment dated 16.02.2015 passed
by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition
No.2866/2014 (Modu Ram V/s Board of Revenue & Ors.)
and judgment dated 03.12.2024 passed by a coordinate bench of
this court in S.B.Civil First Appeal No.673.2024 ( Sua Lal V/s
Kanhi & Ors.). The learned trial Court has committed an error
while rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners. He,
therefore, prays that the writ petition filed by the petitioners may
be allowed and the order dated 24.10.2024 may be quashed and
set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
there is no dispute with respect to the nature of the land, rather a
suit seeking a decree of partition simplicitor has been filed. He
[2025:RJ-JD:8168] (3 of 5) [CW-19263/2024]
submits that there is no tenancy dispute between the parties,
therefore, the matter may not be referred to the revenue court for
deciding the issue seeking a decree of partition of an agricultural
land and therefore, the learned trial court has not committed any
illegality, infirmity and jurisdictional error while passing the order
dated 24.10.2024. He prays that no interference is warranted in
the order passed by the learned trial court, therefore, the writ
petition filed by the petitioners may be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions made at the bar and also
gone through the relevant record of the case including the order
dated 24.10.2024 passed by the trial court.
It will be useful to reproduce Section 242(1) of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955 as under :-
"242. Procedure when plea of tenancy rights raised in
Civil Courts-
(1) If in any suit relating to agricultural land instituted in
a civil court, any question regarding tenancy rights arises
and such question- has not previously been determined by
a revenue court of competent jurisdiction, the civil court
shall frame an issue on the plea of tenancy and record to
the appropriate revenue court for the decision of that issue
only.
Explanation- A plea of tenancy which is clearly untenable
and intended solvely to post the jurisdiction of the civil
court shall not be deemed to raise a plea of tenancy".
(emphasis supplied)
This court also deems it appropriate to quote the issues
framed by learned trial court vide order dated 15.09.2016 in the
suit instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents, which reads as
under:-
"0-1 vk;k fd oknhx.k okn i= ds iSjk la- 01 esa of.kZr la;qDr vfoHkkftr
lEifÙk dk 1@3&1@3 fgLlk ,oa okn i= ds iSjk la- 1 ¼v½ esa of.kZr
la;qDr vfoHkkftr Ñf"k Hkwfe dk 1@4&1@4 fgLlk izkIr djus ds
gdnkj gS\
---oknhx.k
02- vk;k fd izfroknh la- 1@1 ls 1@4 dks okn i= ds iSjk la+- 1 esa of.kZr
la;qDr vfoHkkftr lEifÙk esa dksbZ rksM QksM o u;k fuekZ.k djus dk
dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gS\
---oknhx.k
[2025:RJ-JD:8168] (4 of 5) [CW-19263/2024]
03- vk;k fd oknhx.k okn i= ds iSjk la- 01 o 1 ¼v½ esa of.kZr fooknxzLr
lEifÙk dk ckbZ ehVl ,.M ckm.Ml caVokMk djkus ds gdnkj gS\
---oknhx.k
04- vk;k fd oknhx.k dks okn ls dksbZ fcuk;knkok mRiUu ugha gksus ls okn
[kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS\
izfroknh 1@1 ls 1@4
05- vk;k fd oknhx.k dk okn vi;kZIr U;k;'kqYd ij iLrqr gksus ls [kkfjt ;ksX;
gS\
---izfroknh 1@1 ls 1@4
06- vuqrks"k \
Li"VhÑr fd;k x;k] vU; dksbZ fookd ugha lq>k;s x;sA"
The admitted facts in the present case are that the parties
have some dispute with regard to partition of the properties in
question. It is also an admitted position that one of the properties
is an agricultural land for which an issue has been framed by the
trial court and the issue No.1 includes urban land as well as
agricultural land too for which partition has been sought for.
It is a settled law that civil court is having jurisdiction to
decide the question of partition of the properties where no
revenue dispute is involved. In the present case, since the issues
framed do not reflect any dispute with regard to the tenancy of
the agricultural land, therefore, the civil court is having jurisdiction
to decide the issues farmed therein.
It is further observed that as per Section 242 (1) of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 if any suit relating to the agricultural
land is instituted in the civil court and any question regarding the
dispute relating to tenancy right is there then and the same has
not been previously determined then the matter may be referred
to the revenue court for adjudication of the same. In the present
case, since there is no dispute as far as the tenancy rights are
concerned, therefore, learned civil court is having jurisdiction to
decide the issues framed therein.
[2025:RJ-JD:8168] (5 of 5) [CW-19263/2024]
Section 242 (1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 as
quoted above, specifically provides that matter can be sent to the
revenue court for adjudication only when there is dispute with
respect to tenancy rights, but when there is no dispute with
respect to the tenancy rights and a suit for partition has been filed
simplicitor then in the considered opinion of this court, even if the
partition of the agricultural land is sought for, the Civil Court is
having absolute jurisdiction to decide the same. Therefore, this
court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has
not committed any illegality while passing the order dated
24.10.2024.
So far as the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for
the petitioners are concerned, the same are clearly distinguishable
on the ground that in these two cases, the declaration of
Khatedari rights have been sought and therefore, the issues
framed therein have been rightly sent for adjudication by the
revenue courts, whereas in the present case, there is no dispute
with respect to the tenancy and therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, both the judgments relied upon
by learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable.
In view of the discussion made above, no interference is
warranted in the order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Additional
District Judge No.6, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur. The writ
petition filed by the petitioners being bereft of any force, is hereby
dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
95-Anil Singh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
