[2026:RJ-JP:4155] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20157/2025 Babulal S/o Shri Gangavisan, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Kakod, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Jagdish Son of Gangabishan, Resident of Village Kakod, Tehsil Uniara, District Tonk. 2. 2/1. 2/2. 2/3. 2/4. 2/5. 2/6. Bhavani Shankar, Son of Kalyan, Resident Of Village Kakod, Tehsil Uniara, District Tonk (Deceased) Kishan, Son Of Late Bhavani Shankar Ramavtar, Son Of Late Bhavani Shankar Laxman, Son Of Late Bhavani Shankar Sita Daughter Of Late Bhavani Shankar Wife Of Sonu Gurjar, Resident Of Mahwa, Tehsil And District Tonk Geeta Daughter Of Late Bhavani Shankar Wife Of Ummed Gurjar, Resident Of Ramnagar, Tehsil Uniara District Tonk. Laxma Daughter Of Late Bhawani Shankar Wife Of Khushiram Gurjar, Resident Of Banetha, Tehsil Uniara District Tonk. 3. Prem Devi Wife Of Shankar Lal, Resident Of Village Jhalara, Tehsil Uniara, District Tonk. 4. Smt. Rani Ahuja Wife Of Harish Ahuja, Resident Of T.R- 25, Civil Line, Tonk.(Name deleted) 5. Smt. Radha Wife Of Brahmanand, Resident Of Village Kakod, Tehsil Uniara (Deceased) 6. Ramdayal Son Of Brahmanand, Resident Of Village Kakod, Tehsil Uniyara. 7. Urmila Daughter Of Brahmanand, Resident Of Village Kakod, Tehsil Uniara. 8. Smt. Ramkanya Wife Of Badrilal, Resident Of Village Kakod, Tehsil Uniara. 9. Tehsildar, Uniara, District Tonk. Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajender Singh Rathore with Ms. Neetu Mathur Mr. Rohit Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 29/01/2026 [2026:RJ-JP:4155] (2 of 6) [CW-20157/2025] 1. The present writ petition has been filed at the behest of Babulal S/o Shri Gangavisan with following prayers - "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to accept this Writ Petition and (i) by an appropriate writ, or direction this Hon'ble Court pleases to be quashed and set aside the impugned judgment dated 01.12.2025 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Rajasthan at Ajmer in Appeal/Decree/T.A./4089/2021/Tonk titled as Jagdish Vs. Bhawani Shankar(Annexure-3). (ii) by an appropriate writ, or direction this Hon'ble Court pleases to be quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.08.2021 passed by the learned Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, tonk in appeal NO.16/2009 titled as Jagdish Vs. Bhawani Shankar(Annexure-1). (iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem just and proper in the interest of justice may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that one Jagdish S/o Shri Gangabisan filed a suit (Suit No. 20/2004) for declaration and permanent injunction under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Uniyara, District Tonk against six respondents, namely, Bhawani Shankar, Smt. Prem Devi, Smt. Rani Ahuja, Smt. Radha, Smt. Ramkanya and Tehsildar-Uniyara, District Tonk. 3. In that suit, the respondent-Bhawani Shankar filed a written statement and contested the said suit while stating that neither he nor his father sold the property in question on 07.07.1956. He further contended that the Respondent No.1- Jagdish having no possession over the suit property and prayed for dismissal of suit. 4. Thereafter, the learned Court framed as many as eight (8) issues. After a detailed trial, the learned SDO vide its judgment and decree dated 17.04.2009 dismissed the suit. [2026:RJ-JP:4155] (3 of 6) [CW-20157/2025] 5. Being aggrieved of which, the original plaintiff-Jagdish preferred an appeal (Appeal No. 166/2009) before the Settlement Officer-cum-Revenue Appellate Authority, Tonk under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and the learned Appellate Court, after detailed examination of facts and circumstances, dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 18.08.2021. 6. Being aggrieved of which, the original plaintiff-Jagdish S/o Gangabisan preferred a second appeal (Appeal/Decree/TA/4089/2021/Tonk) under Section 224 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer. After a detailed examination of facts and circumstances, the learned Board of Revenue affirmed the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below and dismissed the second appeal vide order dated 01.12.2025. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of first appeal, the present petitioner has entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 27.02.2020, therefore, he claims that he has a substantial interest in the suit property. He further submits that the petitioner has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC before the learned Second Appellate Court, but the learned Second Appellate Court has erroneously dismissed the same vide order dated 17.07.2025. He further submits that being aggrieved by said dismissal, the petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17953/2025, but before hearing of the said writ petition, since the original second appeal was decided on 01.12.2025. Therefore, the said writ petition has been rendered infructuous. [2026:RJ-JP:4155] (4 of 6) [CW-20157/2025] 8. Learned counsel further submits that on the basis of the agreement dated 27.02.2020, the petitioner is entitled to seek leave to file present writ petition and submits that all the impugned orders are contrary to law, therefore, he may kindly be granted leave to file the present writ petition. 9. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 10. From perusal of the record, it is evident that original plaintiff Jagdish S/o Gangabisan had filed suit in the year 2004 before the learned SDO, Uniyara, Tonk for declaration and permanent injunction under Sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and after a detailed trial, the suit was dismissed by the learned SDO vide order dated 17.04.2009. 11. Being aggrieved of which, the original plaintiff-Jagdish S/o Gangabisan preferred an appeal under Section 233 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in the year 2009 and during pendency of the said appeal, plaintiff-Jagdish allegedly entered into an agreement with the present petitioner. The relevant terms of agreement dated 27.02.2020 are reproduced as under - ^^mDr Hkwfe ds ckjs esa vihy dk QSlyk ;k Hkfo"; esa dHkh Hkh mDr Hkwfe dk vafre fu.kZ; gks tkosxk vkSj og fu.kZ; esjs i{k esa gks tkosxk rks eSa fu.kZ; esa of.kZr leLr Hkwfe esa ls 1@2 fgLls dh Hkwfe esjs Hkzkrk ckcwyky dh [kkrsnkjh esa ntZ djok nwaxkA** 12. A bare perusal of the said agreement indicates that the execution of that agreement was a contingent contract and it is agreed that in case the appeal is allowed, then the present petitioner will get a half share in the suit property. It is an admitted position that the second appeal remained pending since [2026:RJ-JP:4155] (5 of 6) [CW-20157/2025] 2021 and an agreement was executed on 27.02.2020, but no application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was filed by the petitioner in first appeal. 13. Thereafter, the original plaintiff-Jagdish has filed the second appeal. In the memo of appeal, there is no description of the execution of such an agreement. Further, in that second appeal, the present petitioner has filed an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, which was rejected by the learned Board of Revenue vide order dated 17.07.2023. 14. From the facts of the case, it is also evident that the right of the petitioner is dependent upon agreement dated 27.02.2020 which is a contingent contract executed by plaintiff-Jagdish in favour of the present petitioner which stipulates that in case, the decision of the appeal is decided in his favour, then, he will transfer half of his property in favour of the petitioner. It is a trite law that mere agreement does not confer any title since the decision in the appeal filed by plaintiff-Jagdish went against him. Therefore, the said condition of the contract, even if the alleged contract is duly executed, does not possess any right, title or interest in case of the petitioner. Further, it is evident that after execution of that agreement, when the first appeal was decided on 18.08.2021, the present petitioner has not preferred any appeal rather original plaintiff-Jagdish preferred a second appeal in 2021 and that remained pending for five years. 15. The series of events describes that the petitioner has no right, title or interest, so far as the right to hear the petitioner in the present proceedings is concerned. Once the present petitioner has failed to show any semblance of title in his favour, [2026:RJ-JP:4155] (6 of 6) [CW-20157/2025] he cannot be said to be person aggrieved. Therefore, leave to file writ petition cannot be accepted. 16. Accordingly, leave to file writ petition is rejected. Consequently, due to rejection of leave of application, the present writ petition also does not survive. 17. Therefore, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 18. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV/RAHUL /119