Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Devi Lal vs Amandeep (2025:Rj-Jd:3627)
2025 Latest Caselaw 4943 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4943 Raj
Judgement Date : 20 January, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Devi Lal vs Amandeep (2025:Rj-Jd:3627) on 20 January, 2025

Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2025:RJ-JD:3627]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 117/2023

Devi Lal S/o Shri Harji Lal, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of
Matoria Ki Dhani Tehsil And District Hanumangarh.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       Amandeep S/o Jagdish, R/o Chak 16 D.w.d. Tehsil
         Rawatsar District Hanumangarh.
2.       Jagdish S/o Chunni, R/o Chak 16 D.w.d. Tehsil Rawatsar
         District Hanumangarh.
3.       Tehsildar Revenue, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.
4.       Sub Registrar, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.
5.       Municipal Board, Rawatsar Through Executive Officer
         Municipal Board, Rawatsar District Hanumangarh.
6.       Rita D/o Jagdish, W/o Mahendra Singh, R/o Chak 16
         D.w.d. Tehsil Rawatsar District Hanumangarh, At Present
         Karnikhera Tehsil Fazilka.
7.       Sonu D/o Jagdish, R/o Chak 16 D.w.d. Tehsil Rawatsar,
         District Hanumangarh.
8.       Rajkumari D/o Jagdish, R/o Chak 16 D.w.d. Tehsil
         Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.
9.       Khuhbu D/o Jagdish, R/o Chak 16 D.w.d. Tehsil Rawatsar,
         District Hanumangarh.
10.      Pradeep S/o Jagdish, R/o Chak 16 D.w.d. Tehsil Rawatsar,
         District Hanumangarh. Being Minor Through Next Friend
         Mother Gayatri Devi W/o Jagdish R/o Chak 16 D.w.d.
         Tehsil Rawatsar District Hanumangarh.
11.      Krishan S/o Chunni Ram, R/o Chak 16 D.w.d. Tehsil
         Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Ramawatar iSingh
                                Mr. Jassa Ram
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Raju Ram
                                Mr. Rajesh Parihar



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

[2025:RJ-JD:3627] (2 of 3) [CR-117/2023]

Order

20/01/2025

1. Respondent No.1 - Amandeep brought Civil Original Suit

No.10/2020 for declaration that the referred sale deeds in respect

of the ancestral agricultural land, fully detailed in the plaint, be

cancelled to the extent of 1/7th share of the plaintiff. Prayer for

injunction was also there in respect of the suit property.

2. The sole petitioner, who was defendant No.3 in the suit

appeared and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for

rejection of plaint on the ground that the exclusive jurisdiction was

of the revenue court to declare Khatedari Right of the plaintiff; as

the plaintiff was not a recorded Khatedar. Unless his Khatedari

Right was declared by the revenue court, jurisdiction of the civil

court was barred to grant the relief.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after

considering in detail the provisions of Section 207, Section 88 and

Schedule III of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) through

Natural Guardian (Father) Pradeep Kumar Pilania & Ors.

reported in (2019) 3 SCC 692 stated the law that in such a

situation when the agricultural land is involved in the suit and the

plaintiff is not recorded Khatedar, he must first get his Khatedari

Right declared by the revenue court. Only other rights can be

claimed before the civil court.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this is not

a case of application of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, rather, it is a

case wherein, ancestral property is involved, which was not a joint

[2025:RJ-JD:3627] (3 of 3) [CR-117/2023]

family property and without partition, the respondents could not

have sold their share.

5. The case is squarely covered by the judgment of Pyarelal's

case (supra). In that case also gift deed was challenged in respect

of the joint family property and the plaintiff had claimed that to

the extent of his share in that property, the gift deed was void and

fit to be cancelled.

6. It is not disputed that the suit property is agricultural land

and the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was not recorded as Khatedar in

the revenue record. Hence, first the plaintiff was required to get

his Khatedari Right declared by the revenue court.

7. The impugned order suffers from illegality and material

irregularity, hence it stands set aside and the plaint stands

rejected with liberty to the plaintiff to file suit before the revenue

court.

8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision stands allowed.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J 46-nitin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter