[2025:RJ-JP:26484] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 400/2011 1. Gopal S/o Baloo, R/o Village Salempura, Tehsil Lalsot, Distt. Dausa 2. Hari Narain S/o Baloo, R/o Village Salempura, Tehsil Lalsot, Distt. Dausa 3. Jagdish S/o Baloo, R/o Village Salempura, Tehsil Lalsot, Distt. Dausa ----Appellants Versus Moti Lal S/o Sri Narain Brahmin, R/o Village Salempura, Tehsil Lalsot, Distt. Dausa ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. J. P. Goyal, Senior Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Swami, Adv. & Ms. Yashika Vijaywargia, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. K. Tongawat, Adv. for Mr. Suresh Chand Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment 16/07/2025 This civil second appeal has been filed by the appellants- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Bandikui, Headquarter Dausa, Camp at Lalsot in Civil Appeal No.02/2009, whereby the appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Lalsot, District Dausa in Civil Suit No.344/1992, by which the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) for permanent and mandatory injunction. [2025:RJ-JP:26484] (2 of 4) [CSA-400/2011] Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants in which plaintiff sought a relief that defendants be directed to open 80’ x 16’ way situated at Village Salempura and to restrain them in creating obstruction thereon. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that the plaintiff filed the suit without any cogent reason. There is no way/land, which belongs to the plaintiff. Khasra No.53 is agriculture land of the defendants. So, suit be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1- vk;k oknh [k0ua 69 vFkkZr [k0ua0 68 esa gksdj [k-ua0 53 dh nf{k.kh & iwohZ dksus ij gksrk gqvk [k0ua0 51 esa tkus okys jkLrs dk vlkZ yxHkx 50 o"kksZa iwoZ ls mi;ksx esa ysrk vk jgk gSA blfy, oknh dks mDr jkLrs ckcr~ lq[kkf/kdkj izkIr gks x;k gSA 2- vk;k oknh izfroknhx.k dks bl vk’k; ds vkns’kkRed LFkkbZ O;kns’k ls izfrcaf/kr djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd oknh vius [kkrsnkjh dh Hkwfe [k0ua0 53 okdS xzke lyseiqjk ds nf{k.kh iwohZ Hkkx esa 10 xB~Bk yEckbZ o nks xB~Bk pkSM+kbZ ds jkLrs dks oknh ds vkokxeu] gy&cSy] Å¡VxkM+h ykus ys tkus esa [kqyklk j[ks o vke jkLrs dh Hkwfe esa dksbZ dk’r u djsa u djkosaA 3- vk;k izfroknhx.k ds [ksr [k0ua-0 53 esa dksbZ jkLrk ugha gS vkSj u gh dHkh FkkA vr% okn gSrqd ds vHkko esa okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA 4- vuqrks"kA To prove the case, plaintiff got examined PW1-Moti Lal, PW2- Ramji Lal and PW3-Ramesh. Defendants got examined DW-1-Hari Narayan, DW2-Gangadhar and DW3-Hari Narayan S/o Daya Chand. [2025:RJ-JP:26484] (3 of 4) [CSA-400/2011] After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 07.11.2008, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Defendants preferred an appeal against the impugned judgment. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 23.02.2011 dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2008 passed by the trial court. Learned Senior Counsel for the defendants submits that the trial court as well as appellate court committed error in entertaining the suit because it is an admitted position that land situated in Khasra No.69 and 51 of Village Salempura, is an agricultural land. For agricultural land, only revenue court had jurisdiction but trial court as well as appellate court had committed error in decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal. Learned Senior Counsel for the defendants also submits that suit is to be decided by the revenue authority under Section 251 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants be allowed and judgment & decree dated 07.11.2008 passed by the trial court as well as judgment & decree dated 23.02.2011 passed by the appellate court be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the defendants and submits that there was no objection regarding the jurisdiction before the trial court as well as appellate court. So, the said objection cannot be raised at this stage. There is a concurrent finding of both the courts below against the defendants. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:26484] (4 of 4) [CSA-400/2011] I have considered the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the dispute between plaintiff and the defendants relates to a way and it is also an admitted position that the way is in agriculture land. So, as per Section 251 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the revenue authority has jurisdiction to try the suit. So, the present appeal filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. The Civil Second Appeal filed by the defendants is allowed and the judgment & decree dated 07.11.2008 passed by the trial court as well as judgment & decree dated 23.02.2011 passed by the appellate court are set aside. However, the plaintiff is at liberty to file the suit before the revenue authority, whenever cause of action arises. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /66