Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1468 (RAJ)

Lrs of Smt. Bhagwati Devi v. Lrs of Mohammad Ali

2025-08-14

FARJAND ALI

body2025
JUDGMENT : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. By way of filing this instant appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants have assailed the judgment and decree dated 02.07.2022 passed by learned District Judge, Banswara, in Civil Original Case No. 08/2016, whereby the suit instituted by the appellants for injunction and cancellation of entry has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the present case is that the plaintiffs– appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction and cancellation of mutation entry in respect of abadi land situated at Banswara, bearing Survey No. 2384, alleging that the land belongs to them and that defendant–respondents No. 6 to 8, by forging documents, changed the mutation entry and raised illegal construction thereon. It was prayed that the mutation entry over the land, being abadi land, be cancelled and injunction be granted. The defendant– respondents contended in their written statement that the land in question had been surrendered by Bhima Shankar to the District Collector, Banswara, and was subsequently used for extension of the abadi, and that defendants No. 1 to 5 had purchased the property after it was converted into abadi. The appellants denied that either they or their predecessor Bhima Shankar had ever surrendered the land to the Collector, asserting that it still belongs to them through Bhima Shankar. Respondents No. 6 to 8 did not appear before the Trial Court. The learned Court below framed seven issues but, without recording evidence, decided Issue No. 4 relating to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to cancel a mutation entry, and dismissed the suit solely on that ground without going into the merits, thereby depriving the appellants of the opportunity to adduce oral or documentary evidence. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.07.2022 passed by the District Judge, Banswara, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record. 4. Upon meticulous examination of the impugned judgment dated 02.07.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Banswara, in Civil Original Case No. 08/2016, as well as the pleadings and material placed on record, it is manifest that the controversy pivots upon the legality of mutation entry No. 573 dated 25.10.2001 pertaining to Survey No. 2384, originally recorded as agricultural land. The appellants sought, inter alia, cancellation of the said mutation entry and a decree of permanent injunction. The appellants sought, inter alia, cancellation of the said mutation entry and a decree of permanent injunction. 5. The record unequivocally discloses that the plaintiffs themselves have founded their cause of action substantially upon the alleged illegality and fraudulent nature of the said mutation entry. The gravamen of the relief claimed is the setting aside of the mutation entry in the revenue records. The pleadings further reveal that, notwithstanding the description of the land in the mutation as “abadi,” the origin and nature of the property remained that of agricultural land at the time of mutation. 6. The legislative scheme embodied in Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 vests exclusive jurisdiction in the revenue courts over suits relating to agricultural land, including those questioning entries in the record-of-rights. Additionally, Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 provides a specific appellate remedy before the competent revenue authority against an order of mutation. These provisions operate as an express bar upon the cognizance of such disputes by the civil courts, save where the matter falls outside the purview of revenue jurisdiction , which is demonstrably not the case here. 7. The learned Trial Court correctly appreciated that the reliefs sought were intrinsically and inseparably linked to the validity of the mutation entry, and that adjudication of such a dispute is statutorily excluded from civil court jurisdiction. The decision to frame Issue No. 4 as a preliminary issue and decide the same in limine, without entering upon the merits, was both legally sound and procedurally appropriate, given that jurisdictional competence is a threshold requirement. 8. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned District Judge that the suit was barred by Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 , and that the appropriate remedy lay under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 , is fully borne out by the record and the statutory framework. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no legal infirmity, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment and decree dated 02.07.2022 warranting interference under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. The appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 02.07.2022 are hereby affirmed. 11. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no legal infirmity, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment and decree dated 02.07.2022 warranting interference under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. The appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 02.07.2022 are hereby affirmed. 11. However, upon the request of learned counsel for the appellants, Shri C.S. Kotwani, liberty is granted to the appellants to institute, within sixty (60) days from today, an appropriate suit for injunction before the competent revenue court, and to prefer an appeal under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 , before the appropriate authority, accompanied by an application under the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay on the ground of bona fide prosecution before a wrong forum. It is observed that such application for condonation of delay shall be considered sympathetically in light of the circumstances. 12. It is further directed that the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the suit property for a period of sixty (60) days from today. Upon expiry of the said period, this interim arrangement shall automatically stand vacated. 13. The record be transmitted back to the court of origin forthwith.