Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Jalaluddin S/O Shri Tejsingh vs Babulal S/O Shri Haripal on 13 August, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:31368]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 52/2025
Jalaluddin S/o Shri Tejsingh, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Mohalla
Gumat Town Badi Tehasil Badi District Dholpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Babulal S/o Shri Haripal, R/o Mohalla Naya Bans Gumat,
Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur.
2. Batti S/o Shri Haripal, R/o Naya Bans, Gumat, Town Badi,
Tehasil Badi District Dholpur (Died During Suit) Through
His Legal Representative-
2/1. Rambeti W/o Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod,
Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur.
2/2. Sharada W/o Late Ramji, Nati Late Batti, R/o Aligarh
Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi
District Dholpur.
2/3. Deshraj S/o Shri Ramji, Nati Late Batti, R/o Aligarh
Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi
District Dholpur.
2/4. Harichand S/o Shri Ramji, Nati Late Batti, R/o Aligarh
Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi
District Dholpur.
2/5. Hotam S/oshri Ramji, Nati Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari
Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District
Dholpur.
2/6. Munni D/o Shri Ramji, Natini Late Batti, R/o Aligarh
Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi
District Dholpur.
2/7. Guddi D/o Shri Ramji, Natini Late Batti, R/o Aligarh
Tautari Tiraha Mod, Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi
District Dholpur.
2/8. Suneeta D/o Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod,
Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur.
2/9. Munni D/o Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod,
Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur.
2/10. Gudiya D/o Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod,
Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur.
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:57:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31368] (2 of 5) [CSA-52/2025]
2/11. Rajandei D/o Late Batti, R/o Aligarh Tautari Tiraha Mod,
Gumat, Town Badi, Tehasil Badi District Dholpur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sachin Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Pallavi Mehta, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 13/08/2025
This Civil Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant-
plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the judgment and decree
dated 25.11.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Badi,
District Dholpur in Civil Regular Appeal (CIS) No.12/2017,
whereby the first appeal filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed
and affirmed the order and decree dated 20.01.2017 passed by
Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3,
Badi, District Dholpur in Original Civil Case No.17/2013, by which
the application filed by the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the
defendants’) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and the
suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for
permanent injunction against the defendants in which it was
stated that disputed property is a house, which is in the ownership
and possession of the plaintiff and situated at Mohalla Gumat
Kasba Badi, District Dholpur. In the eastern side of this house
there is a public way, in the western side house of Jugurua, in the
northern side house of Kallu Teli and Jalaluddin and in the
southern side house of Horilal Nai are situated. It was also stated
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:57:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31368] (3 of 5) [CSA-52/2025]
that house in question is situated in Khasra No.1089 Rakba 7
Biswa at town Badi and initially father of the defendants Haripal
was the owner of the property. Haripal had executed a sale deed
on 19.12.1979 in favour of Horilal Nai and sold 1/3rd share of
above Khasra. After that, Horilal Nai constructed house and living
there. After that, Haripal sold remaining 2/3rd part of the land to
Munni Devi, Rajendra Singh, Brijendra Singh through registered
sale deed dated 11.06.1981. After that, those persons have
executed a sale deeds in favour of Gokula, Kashiram and Puran
and sold their share to them. Gokula, Kashiram and Puran also
sold the property to Subrati and Aaseen through registered sale
deed dated 29.09.1999. Subarati and Aaseen sold the property to
the plaintiff. So, registered sale deed dated 15.10.2005. Father of
the defendants had no share in the disputed property but
defendants wanted to dispossess the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff filed
the present suit.
Defendants filed the written statement and denied the
averments made in the plaint and stated that disputed property is
agricultural property. So, present suit is not maintainable.
Defendants also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC. The trial court vide order and decree dated 20.01.2017
allowed the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC and dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.
Plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said order and
decree dated 20.01.2017. The appellate court vide judgment and
decree dated 25.11.2024 dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff
and affirmed the vide order and decree dated 20.01.2017.
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:57:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31368] (4 of 5) [CSA-52/2025]
Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial court
as well as appellate court committed an error in dismissing the
suit as well as appeal filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the
plaintiff also submits that plaintiff filed an application under Order
41 Rule 27 CPC that although the disputed land was not converted
but it has come under the Abadi land. Plaintiff submitted
photographs of construction of the houses, shops etc. and also
annexed Water bill, Ration card and Aadhar card which show that
disputed land is used for residential house. So, finding of the trial
court as well as appellate court that present suit is not
maintainable on account of agricultural land, is not tenable in the
eye of law.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that conversion
of the land is not necessary while deciding the suit and rather use
of the land is to be considered.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that if the court
comes to the conclusion that present suit is barred by jurisdiction,
then suit ought to have been returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court in the case of Tota Ram & Ors. Vs. Deep
Chand & Ors. reported in 2013 (4) DNJ (Raj.) 1533.
Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and
submits that trial court as well as appellate court rightly came to
the conclusion that disputed land is agricultural land. A bare
reading of the plaint reveals that the said land was not converted
for residential purposes. So, civil court had no jurisdiction to try it.
Documents filed by the plaintiff should not be considered at the
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:57:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:31368] (5 of 5) [CSA-52/2025]
initial stage of the suit. So, present appeal filed by the plaintiff
being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the plaintiff as well as learned counsel for the
defendants.
It is an admitted position that disputed land is agricultural
land and said land was never converted. So, in my considered
opinion, trial court as well as appellate court rightly came to the
conclusion that civil court had no jurisdiction to try the matter
regarding permanent injunction of the agriculture land. So, no
substantial question of law is made out for admitting the present
appeal. So, the present appeal as well as application under Order
41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the plaintiff deserve to be dismissed.
The Civil Second Appeal as well as application under Order
41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the plaintiff stand dismissed.
However, the trial court is directed to return the suit filed by
the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /43
(Downloaded on 20/08/2025 at 09:57:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)