[2026:RJ-JP:16105-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 308/2026 1. Singari, W/o Late Shri Bhagwanaram, D/o Jaluram, R/o Village Sevad Chhoti, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar. 2. Dhapu W/o Late Shri Rameshwar, D/o Jaluram, Deceased Through Legal Heirs- 2/1. Sharwan Kumar S/o Late Shri Rameshwar, Resident Of Sevan Chhoti, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar. 2/2. Jagdish S/o Late Shri Rameshwar, Resident Of Sevan Chhoti, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar. 2/3. Hardayal S/o Late Shri Rameshwar, Resident Of Sevan Chhoti, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar. 2/4. Shivpal S/o Late Shri Rameshwar, Resident Of Sevan Chhoti, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar. 2/5. Chhotidevi D/o Late Shri Rameshwar, Resident Of Sevan Chhoti, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar. 2/6. Kamla Devi D/o Late Shri Rameshwar, Resident Of Sevan Chhoti, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar. ----Appellants (Plaintiffs) Versus 1. Chunki Devi Widow Of Hadmanaram, R/o Sevad Chhoti, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar. ----Writ Petitioner (Defendant) 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Dhod, District Sikar. 3. Sub Registrar Dhod, District Sikar 4. Shekhawati Gramin Bank, Branch Fagalwa Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar Through Branch Manager ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prakhar Gupta Mr. Sanjay Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal with Mr. Shrey Prodhan [2026:RJ-JP:16105-DB] (2 of 12) [SAW-308/2026] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment REPORTABLE 09/04/2026 1. Instant DB Special Appeal (writ) is preferred by appellant (non-petitioners), aggrieved from judgment dated 18.03.2026 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3562/2026, "Chunki Devi Vs. Singri and Ors.", passed by learned single judge in following manner: "21.Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed, and the order dated 03.02.2026 passed by the learned Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar, to decide the appeal on its own merits, without being influenced by the findings arrived at by the learned Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer in its order dated 03.02.2026 and so also by this Court in the present order. 22. Considering the fact that the Revenue Suit was filed way back in the year 2009, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar may make all possible efforts to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from today, i.e. 18.03.2026, strictly in accordance with law." 2. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that a revenue suit was filed before the Assistant Collector, Sikar for declaration, partition, permanent injunction and correction of revenue entries on the ground that appellants (plaintiffs) are ancestors of Jalu Ram and entitled for 2/3 share in ancestral property. He further submitted that the Assistant Collector after recording evidence of both the parties had decreed the revenue suit in favor of appellants on 04.09.2023, but the judgment and decree was challenged by respondent No. 1 [2026:RJ-JP:16105-DB] (3 of 12) [SAW-308/2026] (defendant), writ petitioner, before the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA) and vide order dated 31.01.2024, the appeal was allowed and matter is remitted back to the Assistant Collector for decision afresh. He further submitted that a second appeal is preferred before the Board of Revenue by both the parties which was decided on 03.02.2026. He also submitted that the Board of Revenue has allowed the appeal preferred by the appellants and set aside the remand order dated 31.01.2024 and upheld the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Collector but dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1-writ petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for appellants also submitted that the writ petitioner has filed a writ petition which was allowed by learned Single Judge and the order passed by the Board of Revenue was set aside and matter is remitted back to the Revenue Appellate Authority (first appellate authority). He also submitted that after considering the legal position and providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties, the suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector, but same was erroneously set aside by the Revenue Appellate Authority, and after correcting the mistake committed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, the Revenue Board has set aside the judgment of RAA. 4. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon judgment in case of Yeshwant Sakhalkar Vs. Hirabat Kamal, (2004) 6 SCC 71, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Visan Kumar, reported as AIR 2009 SC 1999, and submitted [2026:RJ-JP:16105-DB] (4 of 12) [SAW-308/2026] that there is a distinction between Writ of Certiorari and a superintending jurisdiction as provided under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that it is duty of this Hon’ble Court to determine the nature of writ on the basis of pleadings in the writ petition and when it is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Hon’ble Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere. He further submitted that even this Hon’ble Court in case of Kartar Singh Vs. Board of Revenue, reported as RLW 2010 (2), RJ 853, has held that intra-court appeal against order even passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by the Board of Revenue is maintainable. 5. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon judgments in case of Vasant Ganesh Damle Vs. Srikant Trimbak Datar, reported as (2002), 4 SCC 183, Mahant Dhangi and Anr. Vs. Shri Madan Mohan, 1987 Supp. SCC 528, and C Ceriathan Vs. P. Narayanan, reported as (2009) 2 SCC 673, and submitted that the appeal is a continuation of suit and the appellate court have same power as that of trial court. He further referred powers of the appellate court under Order XLI Rule 33 of CPC and submitted that even the appellate court has power and authority to modify the terms of decree and the order passed by the lower courts. 6. Learned counsel has further referred judgment in case of Luna Ram and Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, reported as 2009 RLW (RJ) 671 and submitted that power of Board of Revenue under section 224 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act are [2026:RJ-JP:16105-DB] (5 of 12) [SAW-308/2026] neither curtailed nor governed by section 100 of CPC. He further referred the facts of the case and submitted that the appellants are daughters of Jaluram and to claim their share in ancestral property left by Jaluram, they have filed a suit before the Assistant Collector and same was rightly decreed. He further submitted that the Revenue Board noticing the erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the RAA has set aside the order passed by the RAA and affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector. He further referred judgment in case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors. reported as (2020) 9 SCC 1 to fortify the claim of the appellants in ancestral property. 7. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent writ petitioner and submitted that aggrieved from decree, passed by the Assistant Collector, an appeal was preferred before RAA and the RAA has not adjudicated the appeal on merits. He further submitted that it is duty of the first appellate court to consider and decide the appeal on merits as the adjudication was required to be made on factual and legal issues. He further submitted that there was an important issue regarding limitation which was neither framed nor considered by the Assistant Collector. He further submitted that the RAA has committed serious error while not deciding appeal on merits, in particular addressing the arguments advanced by the respondent-writ petitioner. He also submitted that there is no perversity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:16105-DB] (6 of 12) [SAW-308/2026] 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgment as referred by learned counsel for the appellants. 9. The appellants have filed a revenue suit under Section 53, 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1955"), and under Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1956"), on the ground that appellant No. 1 and original plaintiff No. 2, Dhapu, (since dead, through LRs), are daughters of Jaluram and they have one-third share each in agricultural land as mentioned by them in the plaint. The respondent No. 1, (writ petitioner-defendant), has filed a written statement in a suit for partition. After settling issues, the suit was decreed in favor of appellants (plaintiffs) on 04.09.2023. 10. The respondent-writ petitioner has filed first appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), which was allowed on 31.01.2024 and the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2023 was set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the Assistant Collector for decision afresh, after considering issue of limitation. Both the parties have preferred appeal before the Revenue Board. The Revenue Board has allowed appeal preferred by the appellants on 03.02.2026 and restored the judgment and decree, passed by the Assistant Collector but dismissed the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1-writ petitioner. The respondent No. 1- writ petitioner has filed a writ petition which was allowed by learned Single Judge on 18.03.2026 and the matter is [2026:RJ-JP:16105-DB] (7 of 12) [SAW-308/2026] remitted back to the RAA Sikar for decision of first appeal without being influenced by any order. 11. In case of Kartar Singh Vs. Board of Revenue (supra), a Division Bench of this Court while considering Full Bench reference in case of State of Rajasthan Vs. VRC Mishra reported as 2003 (2) WLC 235 and Ramesh Tiwari Vs. Board of Revenue and others reported as 2005 (2) WLC 305 held that intra-court special appeal is maintainable against an order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction when the order of Revenue Board is under challenge. Considering aforesaid, the special appeal (writ) is maintainable before this Court. 12. Learned Single Judge while considering the writ petition has placed reliance upon judgment in case of P.E. Prasanna Kumari Vs. T.K. Ambujakshi (Dead) through LRs in Civil Appeal No. 4357/2024, decided on 18.03.2024 by Hon’ble Supreme Court, and it was observed as under: 5. It was an appeal preferred by the appellants before the High Court. If the High Court was of the view that there was no merit in the appeal, the High Court could have at highest confirmed the order of remand passed by the First Appellate court. However, as stated above, the High Court has proceeded to set aside the order of remand and restored the decree of the Trial Court. The original plaintiffs were not aggrieved by the order of remand. 7. The only logical order which the High Court could have passed was of setting aside the order of remand and directing the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits. The reason is that the First Appellate Court had passed the order of remand by setting aside the decree in its entirety and while doing so, no adjudication was made on [2026:RJ-JP:16105-DB] (8 of 12) [SAW-308/2026] the factual and legal issues. The appellants cannot be deprived of the remedy of first appeal. 13. Learned Single Judge further considering the scope of examination of appeal by the Board of Revenue and observed as under: "17. The scope of the learned BOR while exercising the jurisdiction of appeal against an order of remand passed by the RAA, without recording any findings on merits, is certainly restricted to examining and evaluating the legality and validity of the remand order. Given the said limited scope, any determination on merits by the learned BOR would certainly lead to bypassing the first appellate authority. The said discipline is necessarily required for maintaining the hierarchy of the appellate forums and any deviation in the same would not only lead to the travesty of justice but would even run contrary to the statutory provisions of appeal. 18. The provisions of CPC and so also of the Act of 1955, to which attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the respondents, though in extenso provide for the powers and scope the second appellate authority, however, under no circumstances by any interpretation, permit curtailment or deprivation of the statutory remedy of first appeal. 19. Guidance qua the said proposition is taken from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PE prasannakumari (supra), wherein, in a similar set of circumstances, it has been held that when an order of remand is challenged before the appellate authority, the only logical order which could be passed is setting aside the order of remand and directing the Court below to decide the appeal on merits. The aforesaid finding squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 20. Also the said remand would, under no circumstances, fall within the [2026:RJ-JP:16105-DB] (9 of 12) [SAW-308/2026] category of an unnecessary remand as specific rights of the parties are to be determined and thus, the judgment in the case of Suvej Singh (supra) will not apply in the present case and in view thereof, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed." 14. In case of Luna Ram and others Vs. Board of Revenue (Supra), a single Judge Bench while considering section 224 vis-a-vis section 100 of CPC, observed that the Board of Revenue can reconsider the evidence available on record while dealing with second appeal on a clear case of misreading of evidence or perversity leading to finding of error of law. The power of High Court under section 100 of CPC is different than power of Board under section 224 of the Act of 1955. 15. The facts indicate that two daughters of Jaluram have filed a revenue suit alleging that the revenue land left by their father is still undivided and they have undivided share in said revenue land. The rights of the appellants (plaintiffs) is based on amendment under the Hindu Succession Act, which came into effect from 09.09.2005. Learned counsel for the appellant has buttressed his arguments on the basis of a three-judge bench judgment in case of Vineeta Sharma and others Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors. (supra). 16. The facts further indicate that the mutation was recorded on 08.06.1989 and 22.09.1995 and thereafter on 03.08.2000. The suit was filed in the year 2009. The pleadings suggest that certain objections were raised by respondent No. 1 writ petitioner, in written statement. The first appellate court order dated 31st January 2024 indicate that objection about [2026:RJ-JP:16105-DB] (10 of 12) [SAW-308/2026] limitation was also raised by the defendant. The finding of the appellate court (RAA) indicate that the issue relating to limitation was not framed and after direction to frame an issue of limitation, the matter was remitted back to the Assistant Collector. The revenue board has considered provision of Order XLI rule 31 of CPC along with Section 88 of Act of 1955 and observed that no limitation has been prescribed to file a suit for declaration. It was also observed that the entries in revenue record is just a fiscal entry. 17. The power under section 224 of the Act of 1955 was considered by a division bench of this court in case of Nand Lal and Ors. Vs. Devishankar and others reported as 2010 (4) WLC (Raj) 327 and observed as under: "Coming now to the submission that the Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by going outside the scope of its authority in interfering with the concurrent judgments, especially on the findings of fact, we are not persuaded to uphold this submission either. Section 224(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, itself postulates that the Board of Revenue can interfere with the judgment passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority where the decision rendered by such Authority is contrary to law or to some uses having force of law, or it has failed to determine some material issue of law or where it has committed substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by or under this Act or by any other law of the time being in force, reflecting upon the merits of the case or the decision is contrary to the weightage of evidence on record, where appellate court has varied or reversed any finding of trial court on a question of the facts. The wording of Section 224(2) of the Act i.e. the decision being contrary to law or having failed to determine some material issue of law or suffering from [2026:RJ-JP:16105-DB] (11 of 12) [SAW-308/2026] any substantial error or defect or contrary to weight of evidence on record, are so wide as to cover the situations which have arisen in the present case and therefore the learned Single Judge has rightly relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus Vs. Gurubux Singh (Supra) and Kochukakkada Aboobacker Vs. Attah Kasim (Supra), wherein it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that where there is a gross misappropriation of evidence which goes to the root of the matter, or where the court has not considered certain documents in a proper perspective and the effect of those documents with regard to the rights of the parties certainly the second appellate court can exercise its jurisdiction. In the present case, we find that the decisions rendered by the first two courts really proceeds on misconstruction of the document Exhibit D-1, and those decisions were rendered contrary to the weight of evidence and the law, on the question of possession of one co-sharer being possession of all, has completely been misunderstood and misapplied by those two courts contrary to settled proposition of law. The learned Board of Revenue was therefore perfectly justified in interfering with the judgment rendered by the S.D.O. And Revenue Appellate Authority and the learned Single Judge for that reason was wholly justified in upholding that judgment of the Board of Revenue." 18. The material on record clearly indicate that the first appellate authority (RAA) has not considered the matters on merits which was required to be considered not only factual grounds but also the legal grounds. The power of first appellate authority is similar to trial court to re-appreciate the evidence as brought on record and to appreciate the facts of case pleaded before the trial court. Thus, the learned single judge, after considering the grounds raised before [2026:RJ-JP:16105-DB] (12 of 12) [SAW-308/2026] him, has rightly taken a view that the first appellate court has not considered the matters on merit and we are in agreement with reasons assigned by learned Single Judge. 19. The judgments referred by learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case and they are not helpful in taking a contrary view than the learned single judge. Therefore, the appeal sans merits and is liable to be dismissed. 20. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the Special Appeal is hereby dismissed, with pending applications, if any. 21. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J CHETNA BEHRANI /29