JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. A challenge has been made to the Judgment dated 23.3.2010 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (hereinafter 'the Board') allowing the appeal filed by the respondent defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') and dismissing the petitioners plaintiffs (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') suit for declaration, partition, possession and permanent injunction laid before SDO, Chaksu in respect of agricultural lands situate in Khasra Nos. 162 to 191, 179/1192, 180/11923, 301, 302, 303, 305 and 306 situate in Village Sheel Ki Dungri, Tehsil Chaksu District Jaipur. 2. The facts of the case are that on service of summons in the plaintiffs suit the defendant filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC which was allowed on 12.6.2006 and the plaint rejected. An appeal by the plaintiffs to the Rajasthan Appellate Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the RAA') however was allowed on 22.5.2009 and the matter remanded to the SDO, Chaksu for consideration on merits and determination of all issues as framed after filing of the defendant's written statement. An appeal to the Board by the defendant followed challenging the RRA's order in appeal. The Board had set aside the judgment dated 22.5.2009 passed by the RAA and restored that of 12.6.2006 passed by the SDO, Chaksu. 3. I have heard counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendant and perused the impugned Judgment dated 23.3.2010 passed by the Board. 4. The Board on consideration of the matter has held that the plaintiffs' suit was laid 42 years after mutation entries in the name of the defendant on the basis of his adoption - as the son of Mangla. And until the belated filing of the suit the defendant was the recorded khatedar of the suit land, in possession and it was inconceivable that the plaintiffs were not aware of the entry of the defendant's name in the revenue record in view of the fact that they belonged to the same extended family and were residents of the same village. The Board also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Narain Sarin (dead) through LRs and others v. Laxmi Devi & Ors (2002) 10 SCC 501 wherein it has been held that where the litigation was utterly vexatious and an apparent abuse of process of Court (as evident in that case where a challenge was laid 40 years subsequent to the cause of action), the suit was liable to be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC. 5. Aside of the aforesaid the reply to the petition filed by the defendant makes it evident that mutation entry No. 594 dated 3.8.1965 having been made in the name of the defendant- as the adopted son of Mangla, a challenge was made thereto in an appeal by the plaintiffs before the Assistant Collector who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 5.5.2005. A further appeal to the Divisional Commissioner was dismissed on 22.2.2006 and thereafter by the Board on 8.6.2007. The plaintiffs thereafter appeared to have challenged the mutation entry and the order dated 8.6.2007 passed by the Board by way of laying a writ petition before this Court (SBCW P. No. 5097/2007) which was dismissed on 23.7.2007. An appeal (DB Civil Special Appeal (writ) No. 1027/2007) there-against was filed which too was dismissed on 5.2.2008. These facts evidence that the plaintiffs were aware of the mutation entries and yet they did not take any steps to have their purported rights declared by way of substantive proceedings for over 40 years till the filing of the suit which was rejected by the Board upholding the order of the SDO under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. The aforesaid fact also establishes that the plaintiffs have not approached this Court with clean hands and suppressed the facts extremely material with regard to the date of their knowledge of mutation of the land in issue in favour of the defendant. The aforesaid fact also establishes that the plaintiffs have not approached this Court with clean hands and suppressed the facts extremely material with regard to the date of their knowledge of mutation of the land in issue in favour of the defendant. Further it is also evident that as long as the adoption of Chittar by Mangla holds it not having been challenged in any substantive proceedings by the plaintiffs, the defendant as the adopted son of Mangla is a Class-I heir in Schedule-I to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1955') whereas the plaintiffs as the sons of brother of Mangla Class-II heirs under the Act of 1955 and thus without a sustainable cause of action for laying their suit qua Mangla's khatedari rights. It is also transpires from the facts on record that the defendant has sold out the suit lands through various registered sale deeds dated 30.6.1986, 13.5.1993, 15.4.2005 and 25.4.2005 prior to the filing of the plaintiffs' suit creating third party rights. 6. From the aforesaid facts on record, I can find no perversity or misdirection in law in the Judgment dated 23.3.2010 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The suit laid by the plaintiffs was eminently liable to be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC being without any sustainable cause of action, grossly delayed and clearly vexatious and frivolous. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition Dismissed.