[2025:RJ-JP:19499]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 243/2024

1. Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Bheem Singh, Resident Of 20, Rajput Bhawan, Kalwad Road, Village Pithawas Hathoj, Kalwad, Jaipur-Rajasthan.

2. Himanshu Singh Rathore Son Of Om Singh Rathore, Resident Of-20, Rajput Bhawan, Kalwad Road, Village Pithawas Hathoj, Kalwad, Jaipur-Raj.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Sanju Kanwar Daughter Of Shri Bheem Singh, Wife Of Virendra Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of 81, Balaji Vihar-33, Hathoj, Kalwad Road, Jaipur-Raj.

2. Bheem Singh S/o Shri Ummed Singh, Aged About 80 Years, Resident Of House No. 20, Rajput Bhawan, Kalwad Road, Village Pithawas Hathoj, Kalwad, Jaipur-Raj. Presently Residing At House No. 20, E-Block, Mangalam City, Kalwad Road, Hathoj, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Sub-Registrar, Kalwad, District-Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanmay Dhand, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 09/05/2025 The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendant Nos. 2 and 3 (for short 'the defendants') against the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate (West), Jaipur Metropolitan-II (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 89/2022 titled as "Sanju Kanwar Vs. Bheem Singh and Ors." whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for declaring the gift deed as null and void and permanent injunction against the defendants and respondent No. 2 in which defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before the trial Court but the trial Court vide order dated 08.04.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants.

Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that by way of present suit plaintiff wanted to get declared the khatedari right and only revenue Court could declare the khatedari right in the revenue Court. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that without declaring the khatedari right, present suit was not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiff wrongly valued the gift deed at Rs. 400/-. So, present suit is not tenable on account of not paying requisite court fees. So, the petition filed by the defendants be allowed and the order dated

08.04.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside.

Learned counsel for the defendant placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

1. Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) Through Natural Guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania and Ors. in civil appeal Nos. 1269-70/2019 decided on 29.01.2019

2. Minor Mandri Murti Shree Yugalkishore Ji and Ors. Vs. M/s Arpita Build Mart Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. in civil first appeal No. 528/2023 decided on 01.09.2023

3. Mahaveer Lunia and Ors. Vs. Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. and Ors. in civil revision petition No. 99/2023 decided on

31.01.2025

4. Aisha Bano Vs. Mohammad Shafi and Anr. in civil misc.

appeal No. 1940/2024 decided on 13.05.2024

5. Shyam Sunder Agarwal and Ors. Vs. Kushalkanwar and ors. in civil revision petition No. 87/2022 decided on

15.09.2023

6. Kamli Devi Sharma Vs. Rampyari and Ors. in civil first appeal No. 280/2022 decided on 03.08.2022

7. Rajasthan State ShriGanganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Ajeet Singh Mali and Ors. in civil first appeal No.

1/2023 decided on 29.03.2023

8. Purushottam Vs. Durgaram in civil revision petition No.

153/2024 decided on 07.11.2024 Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that plaintiff in her plaint clearly mentioned that she had filed a suit for declaration of the khatedari right in the revenue Court. In present suit, she wanted to declare the gift deed as a null and void, which is in the ju