Heera Lal vs Gulab Singh (2026:Rj-Jd:15890) on 7 April, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Heera Lal vs Gulab Singh (2026:Rj-Jd:15890) on 7 April, 2026

1. In both the writ petitions, the judgment impugned dated 12.09.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, is common, hence, both writ petitions have been heard together and would stand decided by this common order.

2. Petitioner is plaintiff, who filed a Revenue Suit No. 413/2010 claiming khatedari rights in respect of Khasra No. 759 & 816 sitauted at Village Badsoda, Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh. This suit was decreed by Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadesar vide judgment dated 28.09.2020.

3. Another Revenue Suit No. 62/2021 was filed by petitioner claiming khatedari rights and injunction in respect of land of Khasra No. 929 situated at Village Badsoda, Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh. This suit was decreed by Sub Divisional Officer, Bhadesar based on the judgment dated 28.09.2020, vide judgment dated 10.06.2021. For ready reference the operative portion of judgments dated 28.09.2020 and 10.06.2021 is being reproduced hereunder:-

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:58:13 PM) (Downloaded on 08/04/2026 at 08:51:45 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:15890] (3 of 8) [CW-18995/2025] Judgment dated 28.09.2020 "vuqrks"k %& pwafd rudh uEcj 1 o rudh uEcj 2 oknh ds i{k esa fu.khZr gS rFkk rudh uEcj 3 izfroknh la[;k 4 ds fo:) fu.khZr gS pwafd mDr nkok /kkjk 53 dh nkn ds lanHkZ esa Hkh izLrqr gS ijUrq bl ij dksbZ rudh bl izdj.k esa dk;e ugha dh xbZ uk gh oknh us caVokjsa ds ckcr vafre cgl esa gh dksbZ dFku fd;k blfy, caVokjsa dh nkn [kkfjt dh tkrh gS ijUrq 'ks"k nkn ds lanHkZ esa oknh us viuk okn c[kwch lkfcr djk;k gS blfy, oknh fookfnr vkjkth uEcj iqjkuk 759 o 816 dh [kkrsnkjh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA vr% okn oknh drbZ fMØh fd;k tkrk gS ,oa ekStk HknlksMk dh lkfcd vkjkth uEcj 759 jdck 1 ch?kk 18 fcLok o vkjkth uEcj 816 jdck 13 fcLok Hkwfe ls izfroknh la[;k 04 xqykc flag eqrcUuk ek/koyky ukgj dk uke jktLo fjdksMZ ls foyksfir fd;k tkdj oknh dks mDr vkjkth;kr esa 1@2 fgLlk Hkwfe ds [kkrsnkj ,oa izfroknh la[;k 1@1 yxk;r 1@6 o izfroknh la[;k 2 o 3 dks 'ks"k 1@2 fgLlk Hkwfe dk [kkrsnkj ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA rn~uqlkj jktLo jsdkMZ esa vey njken fd;k tkosA blh vk'k; dk ipkZ fMØh vyx ls eqfrZc fd;k tkosA "

Judgment dated 10.06.2021 "izdj.k ntZ jftLVj fd;k tkdj izfroknhx.k dks tfj;s lEeu ryc fd;k x;kA cjkst is'kh izfroknh Øekad 1 ckotwn lwpuk vuqifLFkr jgus ls muds fo:) dk;Zokgh ,d rjQk fd;s tkus ds vkns'k ikfjr fd;s x;sA vr% okn drkbZ fMØh fd;k tkrk gS fd ,oa ekstk HkknlksMk dh vkjkth ua0 929 jdck 2 fcLok yxkuh 8 iSlk ftl ij oknh dk mlds iwoZtks ds tekus ls dCtk pyk vk jgk gS] blfy;s oknh bl tehu dk [kkrsnkj dk'rdkj gS vkSj jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa oknh viuk uke ntZ djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS] blfy;s oknh [kkrsnkj ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA rn~uqlkj jktLo jsdkMZ esa vey njken fd;k tkosA blh vk'k; dk ipkZ fMØh vyx ls eqfrZc fd;k tkos tkosaA "

4. Both judgments dated 28.09.2020 and 10.06.2021 were put to challenge by the private respondent- Gulab Singh by way of filing two separate Appeals before the Revenue Appellate Authority. Both Appeals were allowed vide common judgment dated 02.08.2024 and both judgments and decree were set aside and both Revenue Suits filed by petitioner were dismissed. Petitioner has preferred two Civil Second Appeals thereagainst before the Board of Revenue, which have been dismissed vide (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:58:13 PM) (Downloaded on 08/04/2026 at 08:51:45 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:15890] (4 of 8) [CW-18995/2025] common judgment dated 12.09.2025 impugned herein in these writ petitions.

5. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that the Revenue Appellate Authority has erred in setting aside the judgments and decree dated 28.09.2020 and 10.06.2021, without recording issuewise findings. His further submission is that khatedari rights upon the predecessor of Gulab Singh were conferred based on the registered sale deed dated 10.10.1945, which indeed is a fabricated and false document, hence, Sub Divisional Officer rightly quashed the khatedari rights of Gulab Singh and consequently, khatedari rights of lands in question were declared in favour of petitioner. His further submission is that the Board of Revenue has also committed jurisdictional error in affirming the judgment dated 02.08.2024 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority.

To support his contention, counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10901/2022: Dheersingh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Rajkaur, wherein it has been held that the Appellate Court is supposed to pass a reasoned judgment keeping in mind the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, as it is a mandatory requirement of law and non-compliance of the procedure contained in Order 41 Rule 31 CPC by the Appellate Court renders the judgment bad in law.

6. Per contra, cousel appearing on behalf of private respondents submits that sale deed dated 10.10.1945 was made by Moda, grandfather of petitioner, and based on that sale deed, the khatedari rights of lands in question were conferred in favour (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:58:13 PM) (Downloaded on 08/04/2026 at 08:51:45 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:15890] (5 of 8) [CW-18995/2025] of Madholal, adopted father of respondent- Gulab Singh. His submission is that the sale deed dated 10.10.1945 was never challenged by the petitioner and the findings of Sub Divisional Officer in respect of the registered sale deed that same is fabricated and false are without jurisdiction, which have rightly been quashed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and have been affirmed by the Board of Revenue. He further submits that the petitioner could not establish his possession and khatedari rights, hence, declaration in his favour by learned SDO, was made arbitrarily and without any cogent evidence. Hence, impugned judgment of Board of Revenue does not warrant any interference.

7. Having considered the rival contentions of both parties and after perusal of the impugned judgments, this Court finds that the Sub Divisional Officer while declaring the khatedari rights in favour of petitioner plaintiff, has fundamentally considered the legality and validity of sale deed dated 10.10.1945 and held that the sale deed is not legible as much as does not inspire confidence, rather treated the sale deed to be false and fabricated. The Sub Divisional Officer has nowhere discussed the evidence so adduced by the petitioner-plaintiff to establish his khatedari rights over the lands in question. This Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer in respect of registered sale deed dated 10.10.1945, which was not at all in question, were without jurisdiction. Further, mere treating the sale deed as false and fabricated ipso facto do not confer any khatedari rights upon the petitioner unless not established by evidence. The judgment passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, is silent as to on (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:58:13 PM) (Downloaded on 08/04/2026 at 08:51:45 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:15890] (6 of 8) [CW-18995/2025] what basis the khatedari rights in favour of petitioner were declared.

8. In addition to above, this Court has noticed that the registered sale deed dated 10.10.1945 was executed by Moda, grandfather of petitioner, and based on that sale deed, name of adopted father of Gulab Singh i.e. Madho Lal was entered into the Revenue Record, which was never assailed by Moda during his lifetime. The petitioner-plaintiff, without assailing/ questioning the sale deed dated 10.10.1945 claimed khatedari rights in that land, already sold by his grandfather. This fact has been noticed by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as by the Board of Revenue, hence, the judgment passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, declaring khatedari rights in favour of petitioner, in the teeth of registered sale deed dated 10.10.1945 made by his grandfather, has been held to be illegal and perverse, and has been set aside.

9. As far as contention of counsel for petitioner that the Appellate Authority did not pass issuewise findings, this Court does not find any force in such contention since the Appellate Court has considered the factual and legal aspect and passed reasoned findings to reverse judgment passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. Further the Board of Revenue in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction has affirmed the fidnings of the Revenue Appellate Authority on merits.

The manner in which the Revenue Appellate Authority has passed the judgment on merits recording its own findings to reverse the judgment of SDO, it may not be held that judgment does not meet with the mandatory requirement of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC. Mere non-mentioning of issues, may be a procedural flaw, (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:58:13 PM) (Downloaded on 08/04/2026 at 08:51:45 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:15890] (7 of 8) [CW-18995/2025] but not vitiate the judgment on merits. In that view, the judgment passed by the Coodinate Bench dated 07.07.2025 in case of Dheersingh (supra), does not render any support to the petitioner to quash the impugned judgments.

10. It is settled proposition of law that interference in the fact findings by the writ Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 is extremely narrow and limited. In that respect, the off-quoted judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [(2001) 8 SCC 97], may be referred, wherein explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed asunder:-

"The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as anappellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to."

(emphasis supplied) (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:58:13 PM) (Downloaded on 08/04/2026 at 08:51:45 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:15890] (8 of 8) [CW-18995/2025]

11. As a result, impugned judgment dated 12.09.2025 does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

12. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.

13. Stay applications and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN/21-22 (Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 03:58:13 PM) (Downloaded on 08/04/2026 at 08:51:45 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur