1. - This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 6.6.2013 and 7.2.2014 passed by the SDO, Makrana, District Nagaur and the Board of Revenue ('Board') respectively, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been rejected by the SDO and the revision petition arising therefrom has also been rejected by the Board.

2. The respondents No.2 to 4 Kunni Devi, Anni Devi and Sugani Devi all daughters of Harkaran filed a suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction before the SDO, Makrana against their brothers Modu Ram, Ramu Ram and Dharma Ram and transferee Hukma Ram besides State and Sub-Registrar with the averments that the agriculture land in dispute ad measuring 91 Bigha 16 Biswa was recorded in the name of their father Harkaran Ram and was their parental land; Harkaran Ram expired in Samwat 2029 intestate and in terms of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ('the Act'), the plaintiffs (daughters), sons and the widow are his successors, at the time of father's death, their mother was alive, however, she has also expired. It was alleged that the plaintiffs are illiterate women, defendant No.1 Modu Ram had mala fide intentions from the beginning and therefore, after death of their father, the suit land was got mutated in the name of brothers only, mutation entries are mere fiscal in nature and the plaintiffs are entitled to get their right declare at any point of time; the land was not partitioned, at the time of death of their mother, six brothers and sisters agreed to partition 15 Bigha land each after leaving uncultivable land, however, the partition by metes and bounds did not take place.

3. It was further contended that the defendant No.1 taking advantage of mutation entries clandestinely sold 18 Bigha land to defendant-Hukma Ram; Modu Ram could not sold more than 15 Bigha land and therefore, the sale deed dated 29.10.2012 was only a paper transaction and the purchaser does not get any right; the transfer was illegal and was liable to be cancelled; the plaintiffs have ⅙th share each and they get 15 Bigha land each and are entitled to get their tenancy rights declared and get the land partitioned by metes and bounds at the site. It was claimed that the sale deed dated 29.10.2012 was illegal & void and, therefore, the defendant cannot claim any right in the land. It was claimed that balance of convenience was in plaintiffs' favour. It was ultimately prayed that tenancy right of the plaintiffs be declared, it be held that the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3 were entitled to ⅙th share each and the same be partitioned by metes and bounds and the sale deed dated 29.10.2012 in favour of defendant No.4 be declared illegal.

4. On notice being served, the defendants No.1 to 4 filed application under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) CPC, inter-alia, claiming that State of Rajasthan has not been impleaded as party, who is a necessary party under Section 79(b) CPC, the suit has been filed in violation of provisions of Section 80 CPC and the suit was barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act') as the petitioner has sought declaration regarding the sale deed dated 29.10.2012 as illegal.

5. A reply to the application was filed by the plaintiffs denying the contentions raised in the application, it was claimed that the suit was maintainable under Sections 88, 83 & 188 of the Act and the application was liable to be dismissed.

6. After hearing the parties, the SDO came to the conclusion that the suit was filed for declaration of tenancy right and permanent injunction, which was triable by the court and rejected the application filed by the petitioner.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Board, the Board came to the conclusion that the plaint filed by the plaintiffs is not, in any way, hit by provisions enshrined in Order 7, Rule 11 CPC and therefore, the trial court has not committed legal or jurisdictional error by pas