Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
M/S Pushkara Resort Private Limited vs Mrs. Topi Alias Maithi W/O Late Maangu … on 1 August, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:29251]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 187/2023
1. M/s Pushkara Resort Private Limited, Through Its
Directors Sahdev Singh, Vaibhav Singh, Gyanchand,
Ridham Singhvi, Nilesh Mehta, Nedaliya, Pushkar, Ajmer.
2. Mr. Sahdev Singh S/o Bhawani Singh, Aged About 65
Years, R/o Peepli, Chowraha, Vijay Nagar, District Ajmer.
3. Mr. Vaibhav Raj S/o Sahdev Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Peepli, Chowraha, Vijay Nagar, District Ajmer.
4. Mr. Gyanchand Singhvi S/o Manakchand, Aged About 58
Years, R/o Sathana Bazaar, Vijaynagar, District Ajmer.
5. Mr. Ridham Singhvi S/o Gyanchand, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Sathana Bazaar, Vijaynagar, District Ajmer.
6. Mr. Nilesh Mehta S/o Dilip Kumar Mehta, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Nakoda Finance, Sathana Bazaar, Vijaynagar,
District Ajmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Mrs. Topi Alias Maithi W/o Late Maangu Singh S/o Jheeta
Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 51, Nadeliya, Ajmer.
2. Mrs. Maya W/o Gopal Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Behind Hospital, Shivpura, Karnos, District Paali.
3. Mr. Sonu D/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Mohan Singh Vaaya Maanakhedi, Maanpura, Srinagar,
Ajmer.
4. Mr. Ramesh S/o Late Mangu Singh Rawat, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Nadeliya Karnos, Ajmer.
5. Ajmer Development Authority, Through Secretary,
Todermal Road, Civil Lines, Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ridhvick Dosi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anirudh Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Vaishnav, Adv.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 01/08/2025
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners-
defendant Nos.1 to 6 (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order
dated 17.07.2023 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Ajmer
in Civil Suit No.02/2023 (CIS No.05/2023), whereby the
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 10:11:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:29251] (2 of 4) [CR-187/2023]
application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has
been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent
Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for
cancellation of sale deed and declaring the patta issued in favour
of the defendants as null and void in which defendants filed an
application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but trial court vide order
dated 17.07.2023 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the
defendants.
Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that
plaintiffs in their suit had claimed the disputed property as
inheritor of Mangu S/o Jeeta @ Jheeta. As per their contention,
share of Jeeta @ Jheeta S/o Urja in disputed property was 5/6 th
and share of Bhiya S/o Sawai was 1/6th but in revenue record, it
was wrongly entered in the name of Bhiya. It was also submitted
that land is agriculture land and civil court had no jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that in suit,
plaintiffs had not mentioned that when did they got knowledge
about the disputed documents. So, present suit filed by them was
time barred. It was also stated that without getting declared their
khatedari right, they have no right to file the present suit for
cancellation of the sale deed. So, order dated 17.07.2023 passed
by the trial court be set aside and suit filed by the plaintiffs be
dismissed.
Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon
the following judgments : (1) Jagdish Narain Pareek Vs.
Kamlesh Jain & Ors. in S.B. Civil Revision No.225/2007
decided on 02.06.2017; (2) Raghwendra Sharan Singh Vs.
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 10:11:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:29251] (3 of 4) [CR-187/2023]
Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by LRs in Civil Appeal
No.2960/2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.20068/2013)
decided on 13.03.2019; (3) Khatri Hotels Private Limited &
Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) & Ors. in Civil Appeal
No.7773/2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.22126/2009)
decided on 09.09.2011 and (4) Vinay Krishna Vs. Keshav
Chandra & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.3654/1983 decided on
06.03.1992.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that
disputed land was in khatedari of Bhiya and Jeeta @ Jheeta. Share
of Jeeta @ Jheeta was 5/6 th and share of Bhiya was 1/6th but
entire land was wrongly entered in the name of Bhiya and after his
death, it was wrongly entered in the name of his sons namely
Laddu, Hajari and Lala. Subsequently, sale deed was executed in
the name of Madhu Rathore and in the year 2016, Madhu Rathore
sold the land to the defendants. Plaintiffs got knowledge of these
documents when land was converted and patta was issued in the
year 2022. So, plaintiffs filed the suit in the year 2023. Thus, it
was within limitation. It was also stated that the said land is
converted as a commercial land. So, it cannot be said that it is a
revenue land. So, suit shall lie with the civil court.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that trial court
rightly came to the conclusion that the objection raised by the
defendants would be decided in the suit after framing the issues.
So, present petition filed by the defendants be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon
the following judgments : (1) Salim D. Agboatwala & Ors. Vs.
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 10:11:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:29251] (4 of 4) [CR-187/2023]
Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar & Ors. in Civil Appeal
No.5641/2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C)
No.26441/2014) decided on 17.09.2021 and (2) Smt
Suadevi Vs. Shravan & Ors. in S.B. Civil First Appeal
No.286/2014 decided on 25.01.2021.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiffs.
It is an admitted position that disputed land was in the joint
ownership of Jeeta @ Jheeta and Bhiya. In revenue record, it was
wrongly entered in the name of Bhiya and after his death, it was
entered in the name of Ladu, Hajari and Lala. Subsequently, entire
land was sold and was converted as a commercial land and patta
was also issued. So, it cannot be said that the present land is
revenue land and suit cannot be entertained by the civil court. For
cause of action, the plaintiffs in their suit clearly mentioned that
when the defendants got the patta on account of conversation,
they got knowledge regarding sale. So, in my considered opinion,
trial court while dismissing the application filed by the defendants
had not committed any error because objection raised by the
defendants would be decided in the suit after evidence of the
parties. So, the present petition filed by the defendants being
devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed
accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /95
(Downloaded on 06/08/2025 at 10:11:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)