[2026:RJ-JD:12453]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 219/2026 Jesa Ram @ Jai Singh S/o Shri Babuji, Aged About 44 Years, (Adopted) Resident Of Morsim, Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore ----Appellant Versus

1. Gordhan Ram S/o Shri Prema Ram Vishnoi, Resident Of Hapu Ki Dhani, Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore.

2. Vishnu Prakash S/o Shri Gordhan Ram Vishnoi, Resident Of Hapu Ki Dhani, Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore

3. Omkar Singh S/o Shri Himmat Singh, Resident Of Morsim,tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore

4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Sub-Registrar, Bagoda, Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Narendra Thanvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Divaker Sharma HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

16/03/2026

1. The present regular first appeal has been filed against order dated 11.02.2026 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore (hereinafter referred as ‘the Trial Court’) in Civil Original Suit No.04/2022 whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as filed on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 3 stood allowed. As a consequence, the suit for cancellation of sale deed as filed by the plaintiff, stood dismissed.

2. Vide order dated 11.02.2026, the learned Trial Court proceeded on to hold that the suit in question for cancellation of sale deed was not maintainable before a Civil Court without the plaintiff having got a declaration in his favour by a Revenue Court. 3. The Court observed that the plaintiff was not a recorded ‘Khatedar’ of the land in question and hence, he was under an obligation to get his rights in the agricultural land in question declared by a Competent Court and then only he could have filed the suit for cancellation of sale deed.

4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the suit in question was for cancellation of sale deed on the ground of fraud. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that the alleged Power of Attorney on the strength of which defendant No.1 sold out the property in question to two purchasers, was a forged one.

5. Counsel submits that defendant No.1 Gordhan Ram was in fact the lawyer of the plaintiff and he misused his authority and fraudulently got the power of attorney prepared in his favour and proceeded on to execute two sale deeds in favour of one Laxman Singh and his own son, Vishnu Prakash.

6. Counsel submits that it is the settled position of law that when a sale deed is prayed to be cancelled on the ground of fraud, it is only the Civil Court which has the jurisdiction to entertain the same.

7. In support of his submission, counsel relied upon a Co- ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Hasti Cement Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur & Anr. vs. Sandeep Charan & Ors.; 2018 (2)

DNJ (Raj.) 421

8. Counsel submits that subsequent to passing of the order impugned, despite the present appeal been pending before this Court and the respondent having entered into caveat, the property in question was further sold out by Vishnu Prakash vide sale deed dated 13.02.2026 in favour of Smt. Ashok Kanwar and Smt. Shrawan Kanwar. An application for impleadment of the said subsequent purchasers has also been filed.

9. However, at this stage, counsel does not press the said application. The same is hence, dismissed as not pressed.

10. Needless to observe that the appellant shall be at liberty to take appropriate action qua the subsequent purchasers.

11. Per contra Counsel for the respondents, while relying upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Raj Narain Sarin vs. Laxmi Devi; (2002) 10 SCC 501 and the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Jagan Singh vs. Chotey Lal; 1973 RLW 674 submitted that the suit in question was clearly barred by limitation and further the plaintiff failed to disclose any cause of action. Therefore, the learned Trial Court rightly allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.

12. Heard the counsels. Perused the Record.

13. So far as the ground raised by counsel for the respondents to the effect that th