Vijaya Choudhary W/O Jaisingh … vs Ramniwas S/So Hanuman on 10 July, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur

Vijaya Choudhary W/O Jaisingh … vs Ramniwas S/So Hanuman on 10 July, 2025

Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

[2025:RJ-JP:25368]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 17/2025

Vijaya Choudhary W/o Jaisingh Choudhary, Aged About 66 Years,
R/o 1/74, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       Ramniwas S/so Hanuman, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
         Indrapura, Tan Jisukh Ka Bas, Tehsil Malsisar, District
         Jhunjhunu Mobile No. 9983711515
2.       Hanuman S/o Mahalaram, Aged About 93 Years, R/o
         Indrapura, Tan Jisukh Ka Bas, Tehsil Malsisar, District
         Jhunjhunu
3.       Jaisingh S/o Hanuman, R/o 1/74, Malviya Nagar, Tehsil
         Sanganer, District Jaipur
4.       Satyapalsingh S/o Hanuman, R/o 53/44, V.t. Road,
         Mansarovar, Jaipur, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur
5.       Radha D/o Hanuman W/o Jwalaprasad, R/o House No .1,
         Housing Board, Jhunjhunu, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu
6.       Manju D/o Hanuman W/o Pyarelal, R/o Housing Board,
         Jhunjhunu, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Pyare Lal, Adv.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj, Adv.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 10/07/2025

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner-

defendant No.6 (for short ‘the defendant No.6’) against the order

dated 25.07.2024 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu in Civil

Original Suit No.1/2021, whereby the application filed by the

defendant No.6 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:52:58 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:25368] (2 of 3) [CR-17/2025]

Learned counsel for the defendant No.6 submits that the

respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for

cancellation of sale deed dated 25.11.2019 and permanent

injunction against the defendants.

Learned counsel for the defendant No.6 also submits that

defendant No.6 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

before the trial court that no cause of action was accrued to the

plaintiff because disputed land was in the ownership of respondent

No.2-Hanuman. Without getting declared the khatedari rights, the

plaintiff had no right to file the suit but trial court had committed

error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.6.

Learned counsel for the defendant No.6 also submits that

plaintiff also filed a revenue suit regarding declaration, partition

and permanent injunction in respect of the disputed land against

the respondent Nos.2 to 6 before SDO, Malsisar. So, present

petition filed by the defendant No.6 be allowed and order dated

25.07.2024 passed by the trial court be set aside.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No.6 and submits

that the plaintiff had 1/6th share in the disputed land. Sale deed

was executed without any sale consideration. So, sale was not

legally tenable. Plaintiff wanted to get cancelled the sale deed for

which only the Civil court had only jurisdiction. So, trial court

rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant No.6. So,

present petition filed by the defendant No.6 being devoid of merit,

is liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the

judgment passed by Principal Seat of this Court in the case of

(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:52:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:25368] (3 of 3) [CR-17/2025]

Khema & Ors. Vs. Shri Bhagwan & Ors. reported in 1995 (3)

WLC 440.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the defendant No.6 as well as learned counsel for the

plaintiff.

It is an admitted position that disputed land was in the

khatedari of respondent No.2-Hanuman. Respondent No.2-

Hanuman had sold the disputed land to the defendant No.6.

Plaintiff filed a suit before the revenue court regarding declaration

of his khatedari and partition. So, in my considered opinion,

without declaring khatedari rights, plaintiff had no right to file the

suit for cancellation of the sale deed. So, trial court had committed

error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No.6. So,

present petition filed by the defendant No.6 deserves to be

allowed.

The present revision petition filed by the defendant No.6 is

allowed and the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the trial court

is set aside. The suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed for want of

cause of action.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /98

(Downloaded on 14/07/2025 at 09:52:58 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)