JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this first appeal, appellant-plaintiff has assailed the order dated 16.05.2022 passed by Additional District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (HQ Sanganer) in Civil Suit No.64/2022 whereby and whereunder her civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in relation to claim of 1/8th share/khatedari rights in the agricultural lands in question to challenge the disputed agreement and sale deeds, has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

2. Learned trial court, in the order impugned dated 16.05.2022, has categorically observed that plaintiff has instituted the present civil suit claiming her 1/8th share in the agricultural lands of Khasra Nos.202, 204 to 209 total ad measuring 2.41 hectare situated at Village Rampurabas, Goner, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur and has challenged the agreement dated 13.11.2013, sale deed dated 03.02.2014 executed by her father and the subsequent sale deed dated 28.03.2022 to be declared as null and void to the extent of her 1/8th share. The khatedari rights of plaintiff for her 1/8th share in the aforesaid lands have not been declared by the revenue court and the plaintiff has not instituted any revenue suit for declaration and partition of her 1/8th share in the aforesaid agricultural lands. The trial court has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in case of Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (minor) & Ors. reported in [(2019) 3 SCC 692] and two other judgments of Rajasthan High Court passed in case of Bagaram & Ors. vs. Balkishan @ Balramkishan & Anr. reported in [2019 (2) WLC (Raj.) UC 551] and Rukmani vs. Bhola & Ors. reported in [2012 (2) WLC (Raj.) 797].

3. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the impugned order and the plaint as well as the record of trial court.

4. By perusal of the plaint, more particularly para No.6, it is clear that plaintiff claimed her 1/8th share on the basis of a compromise order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Chaksu, District Jaipur. In this revenue suit, admittedly plaintiff is not party and her four sisters instituted this revenue suit against their father-Puranmal wherein Puranmal gave consent that in his agricultural land, each plaintiff i.e. his daughters has 1/8th undivided khatedari rights of each. On the basis of consent given by father Puranmal, the revenue suit was decreed and order dated 23.02.2015 was passed. It may be noticed that prior to passing of the consent order dated 23.02.2015, father-Puranmal had already entered into an agreement dated 13.11.2013 to sell the lands of Khasra Nos.202, 204 to 209 measuring 2.41 hectare in favour of one Mahesh Kumar Sharma (respondent No.8 herein) and thereafter, through receipt dated 18.11.2015 he received entire sale consideration of Rs.95,80,000/-and executed a registered sale deed dated 03.02.2014 in favour of one Shri Sharwan Lal Yadav and transferred his khatedari rights and possession in favour of purchaser Sharwan Lal Yadav (respondent No.9 herein).

5. It may be noticed that at that point of time, lands in question were recorded in the revenue record only in the sole name of father-Puranmal and on the basis of revenue record, he sold these lands alleging him as the sole khatedar, owner, possessor of these lands. It may be noticed that after transferring his khatedari rights, ownership and possession of aforesaid agricultural lands, at least through registered sale deed dated 03.02.2014, father-Puranmal could not have given consent in favour of his daughters in the revenue suit that his daughters have 1/8th undivided share/khatedari rights in the agricultural lands and therefore, on the face value, the consent order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer may not be treated as a judicial declaration by the revenue authorities regarding 1/8th khatedari rights/shares of daughters of Puranmal at least as far as for lands already sold by Puranmal through registered sale deed. It is