Saturday, 16, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Smt. Chunni Devi vs Devraj (2026:Rj-Jd:11865)
2026 Latest Caselaw 3799 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3799 Raj
Judgement Date : 12 March, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Chunni Devi vs Devraj (2026:Rj-Jd:11865) on 12 March, 2026

Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:11865]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 61/2026

1.       Smt. Chunni Devi W/o Jaganath Ramji, Aged About 95
         Years, Resident Of Jato Ka Bas, Modi Joshiyan, Tehsil And
         District Jodhpur.
2.       Mangi Devi W/o Mohanlalji, Aged About 70 Years,
         Resident Of Paliwalo Ka Bas, Aatan, Tehsil Rohat, District
         Pali.
3.       Narayan Ram S/o Hari Ramji, Aged About 55 Years,
         Resident of Jato Ka Bas, Modi Joshiyan, Tehsil And District
         Jodhpur.
4.       Mukesh S/o Narayan Ramji, Aged About 27 Years,
         Resident Of Jato Ka Bas, Modi Joshiyan, Tehsil And
         District Jodhpur
5.       Jeetu S/o Narayan Ramji, Aged About 24 Years, Resident
         Of Jato Ka Bas, Modi Joshiyan, Tehsil And District Jodhpur
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
1.       Devraj S/o Narayan Ram, Resident Of Jato Ka Bas, Modi
         Joshiyan, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
2.       Lrs Of Late Shri Mishrilal S/o Narayan Ram, Resident Of
         Jato Ka Bas, Modi Joshiyan, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
2/1.     Smt. Khiya Devi W/o Late Mishrilal, Resident Of Jato Ka
         Bas, Modi Joshiyan, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
2/2.     Oma Ram S/o Late Mishrilal, Resident Of Jato Ka Bas,
         Modi Joshiyan, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
2/3.     Smt. Santu Devi D/o Late Mishrilal, W/o Hariram Paliwal,
         R/o Khatu, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur (Now District
         Didwana Kuchaman)
2/4.     Smt. Papu Devi D/o Late Mishrilal, W/o Khinvraj, R/o
         Dudli, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali.
2/5.     Smt. Manju Devi D/o Late Mishrilal Ji, W/o Tilokchand, R/
         o Dudia, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali.
2/6.     Smt. Leela D/o Late Mishrilal Ji, W/o Paparam Paliwal, R/o
         Khatu, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur (Now District
         Didwana- Kuchaman)
2/7.     Smt. Guddi D/o Late Mishrilal, W/o Omaram Paliwal, R/o
         Kakelav, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.

                       (Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 06:34:02 PM)
                      (Downloaded on 12/03/2026 at 08:48:56 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:11865]                   (2 of 3)                          [CR-61/2026]


 3.      Sub Registrar Officer, Rohat, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali.
 4.      Tehsildar Rohat, Tehsil Rohat, District Pali.
 5.      State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Pali.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Bharat Shrimali
For Respondent(s)         :



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

12/03/2026

1. The present revision petition has been filed against order

dated 23.01.2026 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Pali in Civil

Original Suit No.77/2015 whereby the application under Order 7

Rule 11, CPC r.w. Section 207 and 256 of Rajasthan Tenancy

Act,1955 as filed by defendants Nos. 1 to 5, stood rejected.

2. The ground raised by the defendants was that the suit for

cancellation of Power of Attorney and Sale deed was not

maintainable without a declaration been made by the Revenue

Court in favour of the plaintiffs.

3. The learned Trial Court, while rejecting the application,

observed that the plaintiffs were already the recorded 'Khatedars'

of the land in question and hence, were not required to get any

declaration in their favour.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the

plaintiffs were the recorded 'Khatedars' earlier, but were not on

the date of filing of the suit. Hence, they were required to get a

declaration in their favour first.

5. Heard the counsel. Perused the record.

(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 06:34:02 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11865] (3 of 3) [CR-61/2026]

6. It is an admitted fact that the mutation entry vide which the

name of the purchasers were mutated in the revenue record was

subsequent to the impugned sale deed. Prior to the same, the

plaintiffs were the recorded 'Khatedars' in the revenue record. In

that view, when the names of the plaintiffs were deleted from the

revenue record only because of the Sale deed which was under

challenge in the present suit, the learned Trial Court rightly held

that the plaintiffs were not required to seek any fresh declaration

in their favour.

7. The order impugned being totally in consonance with law

does not deserve any interference and the revision petition is

hence, dismissed.

8. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed

of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 11-amit/-

(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 06:34:02 PM)

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 : IJJ

 

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

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter