Case Law
Subject : Law - Property Law
Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that civil courts retain jurisdiction to hear regular suits concerning rights of way and other easements on agricultural land, dismissing a second appeal that argued such matters fall exclusively under the purview of revenue courts.
The ruling, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yogendra KumarPurohit on April 24, 2025 , upholds the concurrent findings of both the trial court (Gram Nyayalaya, Girwa, Udaipur) and the first appellate court (Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur).
Case Background
The case originated when the respondents (plaintiffs in the trial court) filed a suit seeking a right of way and permanent injunction to access their agricultural fields (Araazi No. 1483, 1919). They claimed a traditional access route passed through Araazi numbers 1914, 1916, and 1917, crossing a boundary (
pali
) on Araazi No. 1509, belonging to one of the appellants' predecessors. The plaintiffs asserted they had acquired an easementary right over this path for their farming activities. They alleged that the appellant (defendant No. 3) had obstructed the path by placing stones and building a boundary.
The defendants contested the suit, raising various objections, including a crucial point regarding the civil court's jurisdiction over a dispute involving agricultural land and easement rights.
The trial court framed six issues, specifically addressing the acquisition of the easementary right (Issue No. 3) and the civil court's jurisdiction over an agricultural land dispute under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (Issue No. 4). Both issues were decided in favor of the plaintiffs. The trial court granted the relief sought, ordering the removal of the obstruction within two months and permanently restraining future obstructions.
The appellants challenged this decision before the first appellate court, which upheld the trial court's findings on all counts, including the jurisdiction issue based on Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
Appellant's Challenge: Jurisdiction Questioned
Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, the appellants filed a second appeal before the High Court. The primary ground for the appeal was that disputes related to agricultural land, especially concerning rights of way, fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of revenue courts or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) as per Sections 207 and 251A read with Section 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and the Third Schedule of the Act. They cited the High Court's own judgment in Lal Singh v. Pannalal to support their contention that civil courts lack jurisdiction in such matters.
Court's Analysis: Interpreting Tenancy Act Provisions
Justice Purohit carefully examined the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, particularly Sections 207, 256, and 251, in light of the arguments presented.
The appellants argued that since Section 251 is mentioned in the Third Schedule (Item 81), and Section 207 grants exclusive jurisdiction to revenue courts for scheduled matters, the civil court's jurisdiction is barred.
However, the High Court highlighted the structure of Section 251 itself:
The Court emphasized that Section
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent
Justice
Purohit
drew strength from the Supreme Court's judgment in
Smt.
The High Court found the principles laid down in
Distinguishing Precedent
The Court also distinguished the appellant's cited case of
Conclusion
Based on the combined reading of Sections 207, 256, and
Since both lower courts had correctly determined jurisdiction based on this legal position and their findings on facts were concurrent, the High Court found no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the second appeal.
Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself, affirming the civil courts' power to adjudicate easement disputes on agricultural land in Rajasthan through regular suits.
The judgment underscores the importance of carefully reading statutory provisions, especially savings clauses and exceptions, when determining the scope of a civil court's jurisdiction.
#RajasthanTenancyAct #EasementRights #Jurisdiction #RajasthanHighCourt
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Consolidated SCNs under Sections 73/74 CGST Act Permissible Across Multiple FYs: Karnataka HC
01 May 2026
Allahabad HC Stays NCLT Principal Bench Order Mandating Joint Scrutiny of Allahabad Bench Filings
01 May 2026
Bombay HC Grants Interim Protection from Arrest Despite Pending Anticipatory Bail in Lower Court Due to Accused's Marriage: Sections 351(2), 64(2)(m), 74 IPC
01 May 2026
Heavy Machinery Barred in Mining Leases Except Dredging: Uttarakhand HC Directs DM to Enforce Rule 29(17) of Minor Mineral Rules
01 May 2026
No Deemed Confirmation After Probation Without Written Order Under Model Standing Orders Clause 4A: Bombay High Court
01 May 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.