JUDGMENT :

1. The present second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2022 passed by the District Judge, Sirohi in Civil Regular First Appeal No.2/2021 (CIS No.02/2021) whereby the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2021 passed by the Civil Judge, Reodar, Sirohi in Civil original Suit No.1/2015 has been affirmed. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 18.02.2021 proceeded on to dismiss the suit as preferred by the plaintiffs for declaration of the sale deed to be void and for declaratory and permanent injunction on merits as well as on the ground of same being barred by limitation.

2. The dispute in question pertains to a land situated in a Gramdan Village named Anadra in tehsil Reodar, District Sirohi. The plaintiffs alleged that Chand Khan, their uncle, fraudulently, with aid of Gramdan Chairman/President, got a sale deed dated 01.01.1989 executed in his favour vide which the share of Ahmed Gafar, father of the plaintiffs was shown to be sold to him. It was averred that defendant Chand Khan fraudulently got the sale deed executed in his favour without the knowledge of Ahmed Gafar and hence, the suit for declaration of sale deed dated 01.01.1989 to be void and for injunction was filed on 07.01.2015. It was averred in the suit that Gram Sabha did not have any right to register the sale deed and hence the sale deed was void ab initio and could not have affected any rights of the plaintiffs.

3. The case of defendant no.1 Chand Khan was that one of the brothers Ahmed Gani, vide a gift deed, transferred his share in favour of Chand Khan and the other brother Ahmed Gafar (father of the plaintiffs), vide registered sale deed dated 01.01.1989, sold out his share to him. He further averred that the sale deed was registered by the Gram Sabha in terms of the Rajasthan Gramdan Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1971’) and that he was in possession of the property since the date of sale.

4. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note that in the suit, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was filed by the defendant with an averment firstly that the dispute pertains to an agricultural land and hence the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and secondly that the dispute was governed by the Act of 1971 and Section 46 of the said Act provides that neither the Civil Court nor the Revenue Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.

The application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 16.11.2017.

5. Learned trial Court, ultimately, proceeded on to dismiss the suit on merits as well as on the ground of the same being barred by limitation. Issue No.7 pertaining to limitation was decided in favour of defendant No.1 and against the plaintiffs. Findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.08.2022 against which the present second appeal has been preferred.

6. The first and foremost ground raised by learned counsel for the appellants before this Court is that the learned trial Court could not have entertained the suit itself, the same being barred by law i.e. Section 46 of the Act of 1971. Section 46 of the Act of 1971 provides that no Civil or Revenue Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which is to be decided by any officer or authority under the Act. By virtue of Section 46, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and hence the decrees as passed by Courts below are a nullity. Once it is held that the Court lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the decree being a nullity, could be declared to be so at any stage.

Learned counsel submitted that even if the ground of the Court lacking jurisdiction was not raised before the Courts below, the same can very well be raised before this Court as the same goes to the root of jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submitted that the question whether