Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.—By way of this writ petition, the petitioners, who are defendants in a revenue suit for declaration, partition, recovery of possession, perpetual injunction and correction of revenue record as filed by the plaintiffs (respondents Nos. 2 to 5 herein) and pending before the Assistant Collector & Sub-Divisional Officer, Luni, Jodhpur, seek to question the order dated 29.6.2011 (Annex. 7) as passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer (`the Board') in Revision Petition No.TA/675/2011/Jodhpur. By the said order dated 29.6.2011, the Board has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.1.2011 (Annex. 5) as passed by the Trial Court rejecting an application moved under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the subject matter of this writ petition, when the contesting parties, i.e., the defendant-petitioners and the plaintiff-respondents Nos. 2 to 5 have appeared, while dispensing with service on the Performa respondents, the matter has been considered finally at this stage itself.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant background aspects are that the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 2 to 5 have filed the suit aforesaid seeking declaration of their rights in the land in dispute comprised in Khasra Nos. 415 and 416, admeasuring 39 bighas and 10 biswas and situated at village Salawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur with the submissions, inter alia, that the land in question was the khatedari land of their grandfather Shri Nenu Ram and they were having birthright therein. According to the plaintiffs, after the demise of Shri Nenu Ram, the land in question came to be wrongly recorded only in the name of their father Mangi Lal (defendant No. 15) and the other defendants illegally got the same transferred in their names and were intending to alienate the same further. The plaintiff have also claimed the reliefs of partition claiming 1/5th share each in the land in question; of recovery of possession; and of perpetual injunction for restraining the defendants from alienating the land in question or interfering with their rights.

4. The contesting defendants (petitioners herein) have filed the written statement denying the plaint allegations and stating that the land in question had been in the cultivatory possession of their ancestors. It is alleged that though the land in question came to be recorded in the name of Nenu Ram, the grandfather of the plaintiffs, but had never been in his possession. It has further been averred that after the death of Nenu Ram, the name of the defendant No. 15 Mangi Lal (father of the plaintiffs) was recorded as the sole heir and then, he entered into a settlement with the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 on 5.11.1971. The defendants have also referred to the other litigations by and against the father of the plaintiffs wherein, according to the defendants, orders had been passed in their (defendants) favour. The contesting defendants have also asserted that the plaintiffs have no right in relation to the land in question and are not entitled to maintain the suit as filed. They have also denied accrual of any cause of action to the plaintiffs.

5. In the suit aforesaid, after framing of issues, the matter was posted or the plaintiff's evidence but then, the defendants-petitioners proceeded to move an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending, inter alia, that the plaintiffs had no cause of action for maintaining the suit. It was contended that even if the plaint allegations were taken on their face value, the land in question was that of Nenu Ram, the grandfather of the plaintiffs; and, after his demise, it came vesting in the only son of Nenu Ram, i.e, Mangi Lal, the father of the plaintiffs. According to the defendants, when Mangi Lal was holding the land in question as the sole Khatedar, the plaintiffs had no claim therein during his life time. It was, thus, submitted that the plaint was requi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document