##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:14559]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 183/2025

Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Panna Ram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Bera Jamadaron Ki Dimadi, Bagadi Nagar, Tehsil Sojat District Pali

----Petitioner Versus

1. Kailash S/o Sh. Durg Singh, R/o Savrad Tehsil Marwad Junction, District Pali

2. Sonu D/o Durg Singh, R/o Savrad Tehsil Marwad Junction, District Pali

3. Laxmi Devi D/o Durg Singh, R/o Savrad Tehsil Marwad Junction, District Pali

4. Bhagwati D/o Durg Singh, R/o Savrad Tehsil Marwad Junction, District Pali

5. Kamla D/o Durg Singh, R/o Savrad Tehsil Marwad Junction, District Pali

6. Bhanwari Devi W/o Durg Singh, R/o Village Sirsarwada Tehsil Sojat, District Pali

7. Temu Devi W/o Vaktaram, R/o Savrad Tehsil Marwad Junction, District Pali

8. Tehsildar (Land Revenue), Marwad Junction, District Pali

9. Sub Registrar, Sub Registrar Office Marwad Junction, District Pali.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopal Sandu For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Tatia with

Mr. Rajat Rajpurohit for Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

28/03/2026

1. The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 29.05.2024 passed by District Judge, Pali in Civil Original

(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 08:07:37 PM)

(Downloaded on 16/04/2026 at 11:15:18 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14559] (2 of 4) [CR-183/2025] Suit No.49/2024 whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Section 151, CPC r/w Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955

as filed by defendant No.7, stood rejected.

2. Two folds arguments were raised by defendant No.7:

(i) The suit in question was not maintainable before a Civil

Court without the plaintiff having got his share declared

by a competent Revenue Court;

(ii) District Court did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to

entertain the suit, as the relief prayed for by the plaintiff was only qua his share, which comes out to be 1/7th of the whole property. Meaning thereby, the valuation of the suit, qua his share was Rs.1,48,857/- only and hence, the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the matter was of a Civil Judge/Magistrate and not the

District Court.

3. The reliefs as prayed for by the plaintiff in the suit, read as

under:-

“A. okni= ds in la[;k 1 esa of.kZr oknLFk d`f’k Hkwfe dk olh;rukek fnukafdr 10@01@2024 QthZ] dqVjfpr o fof/k fo:) :i ls rS;kj dj uksVsjh ifCyd ls rLnhd djok;k] tks olh;rukek oknh ds gd o vf/kdkjks ds fo:) “kqU; o fu’izHkkoh gksus ls QthZ o dqVjfpr olh;rukek fnukad 10@01@2024 dks “kqU; voS/k o fu’izHkkoh ?kksf’kr dj

fujLr Qjek;k tkosA B. LFkkbZ fu’ks/kkKk bl vk”k; dh lkfnj QjekbZ tkos fd izfroknh la[;k 8 o 9 oknLFk d`f’k Hkwfe ftldk mYys[k okni= ds in la[;k 1 esa of.kZr gS ftlds lEcU/k esa rS;kj olh;rukek fnukad 10@01@2024 ds vk/kkj ij oknLFk d`f’k Hkwfe dk ukekUrj.k bUnzkt ugh djs rFkk izfroknh la[;k 7 mDr QthZ o dqVjfpr olh;rukes ds vk/kkj ij oknLFk d`f’k Hkwfe dk

(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 08:07:37 PM)

(Downloaded on 16/04/2026 at 11:15:18 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14559] (3 of 4) [CR-183/2025]

vU;= cSpku vUrj.k] cDlhl] jgu bR;kfn ugha djsa u gh vU; ls djkos rFkk oknLFk Hkwfe ds Lo:i esa fdlh izdkj dk ifjorZu ugha djs u gh fdlh vU; ukSdj ,tsUV ls djkos rFkk izfroknh la[;k 7 oknLFk nLrkost

ds vk/kkj ij jktLo jsdMZ esa viuk uke bUnzkt ugh djkosA C. [kpkZ eqdnek oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA

D. vU; vuqrks’k tks U;k;ksfpr gks oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA”

4. A bare perusal of above prayer number A reflects that the plaintiff prayed for declaration of the Will in question to be null and ineffective and further, for cancellation of the same. The said relief has not been limited to his own share. In that view of the matter, the issue regarding territorial jurisdiction as raised by the defendant, is not found to be tenable. The learned Trial Court rightly observed that the defendant would be at liberty to raise objection regarding court fee subsequently in his written statement and the same could be decided only after evidence

been led on the same.

5. So