##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:23089]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 396/2026

Balaram S/o Shri Bhagirath, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of

Somana, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

----Appellant

Versus

1. Smt. Rameshwari Devi W/o Shri Ramnivas, Resident Of

Somana, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

2. Bhagirath S/o Shri Shivkaran, Resident Of Somana, Tehsil

Jayal, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jogendar Singh

Mr. Govind

For Respondent(s) : -

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

14/05/2026

1. The appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintiff seeking a

declaration to the effect that the sale deed in question is a nullity,

void and illegal, has been dismissed by the learned trial Court

primarily on the ground that the suit property is admittedly an

agricultural land and the appellant-plaintiff was not a recorded

khatedar thereof. The learned trial Court has observed that unless

and until the appellant-plaintiff first secures a declaration of his

rights from the competent Revenue Court, he cannot maintain a

suit before the Civil Court for cancellation of the sale deed or for

declaration regarding its invalidity. Reliance in this regard has

been placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme

(Uploaded on 18/05/2026 at 10:13:44 AM)

(Downloaded on 18/05/2026 at 11:15:44 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:23089] (2 of 3) [CFA-396/2026]

Court in the case of Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania and Ors.

reported in (2019) 3 SCC 692.

2. A meaningful and careful perusal of the plaint reveals that

the suit came to be instituted with the averments that the plaintiff

and the defendant are members of a joint Hindu family and,

therefore, the plaintiff claimed himself to be a co-sharer in the suit

property. It was pleaded that certain agricultural lands, particulars

whereof were specifically mentioned in the plaint, originally

belonged to one Shiv Karan, the common ancestor of the parties.

It was further averred that a partition had taken place between

the parties by mutual consent pursuant to a decree dated

06.09.1972 and consequential mutation No.185 was also entered

in the revenue record. On the strength of the said decree, the

plaintiff claimed half share in the suit property.

3. Indisputably, the appellant-plaintiff was never recorded as

khatedar tenant in the revenue records concerning the suit land.

The learned trial Court, while dealing with the objection raised at

the instance of the defendant-respondent, rightly arrived at the

conclusion that before seeking declaration regarding invalidity of

the sale deed, the appellant-plaintiff was required, in the first

instance, to obtain an adjudication from the competent Revenue

Court declaring his rights and share in the agricultural land. It was

only thereafter, upon appropriate mutation being entered in his

favour and his status being recognized as recorded khatedar

tenant, that he could have maintained a suit seeking cancellation

of the sale deed or declaration to the effect that the alienation

made by the defendant was ineffective qua his alleged share. The

(Uploaded on 18/05/2026 at 10:13:44 AM)

(Downloaded on 18/05/2026 at 11:15:44 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:23089] (3 of 3) [CFA-396/2026]

proposition of law governing the controversy is no longer res

integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement referred to

hereinabove.

4. The learned trial Court has undertaken due consideration of

the controversy while adjudicating upon the application preferred

by the defendant-respondent and the conclusion ultimately drawn

is not only well reasoned but also in consonance with the settled

principles of law governing the field. This Court, therefore, finds

no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the order impugned

warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit deserves dismissal

at the threshold itself.

5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage

while taking recourse to the provisions of Order XLI Rule