The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, presided over by Justice Farjand Ali, has held that agricultural land inherited by Class-I legal heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, devolves in their individual capacity as self-acquired property and does not automatically retain a coparcenary character for subsequent generations. Dismissing a civil first appeal, the High Court affirmed a trial court’s rejection of a suit seeking partition and cancellation of sale deeds, ruling that a grandson cannot claim an independent birthright in property inherited by his father unless the foundational existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) is specifically pleaded and established. Furthermore, the Court held that a civil suit seeking cancellation of sale deeds over agricultural land is non-maintainable unless the plaintiff’s underlying khatedari rights are first declared by a competent revenue court under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
Background of the Case
The dispute pertained to 75 bighas of unirrigated second-class agricultural land in Khasra No. 294/506 situated at Village Jaimla, Tehsil Pokhran, District Jaisalmer. The property was originally allotted to late Chutra Ram S/o Labhuram under Section 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, as a landless person for agricultural purposes.
Following Chutra Ram’s intestate death on April 24, 2004, the land was mutated in equal 1/3rd shares in favor of his three sons—Khetaram, Ramaram, and Lachchuram—who succeeded as his Class-I legal heirs. On April 17, 2025, the three sons executed a registered sale deed transferring the land to Chunaram. The property was subsequently alienated to Amjad Khan and Suravi Estates LLP through registered sale deeds dated September 26, 2025, and September 29, 2025.
Devaram, the son of Khetaram, instituted a civil suit before the Additional District Judge, Pokhran, claiming an undivided 1/9th coparcenary share by birth, permanent injunction, and cancellation of the sale deed dated April 17, 2025. Respondent No. 7 (Suravi Estates LLP) filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), contending that the civil court lacked jurisdiction in the absence of a revenue court declaration regarding the plaintiff’s alleged khatedari rights. On February 10, 2026, the trial court allowed the application and rejected the plaint. Devaram challenged this decision before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant argued that the land was originally allotted to his grandfather for family maintenance and devolved as ancestral property upon his death, thereby conferring a 1/9th coparcenary interest upon the appellant by birth. He submitted that his father and uncles could not alienate the property without his consent, and that issues regarding the coparcenary nature of the property required trial on evidence rather than rejection at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
In response, counsel for the respondents argued that the appellant’s pleadings failed to assert that an HUF existed or that Chutra Ram acted as a karta. They submitted that upon Chutra Ram’s death, succession opened under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, vesting 1/3rd shares in his sons in their individual capacities. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, they contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction because the appellant had neither sought nor obtained a declaration of his alleged khatedari rights from a competent revenue court under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
Court’s Analysis
Examining the pleadings, Justice Farjand Ali observed that the plaint contained no specific assertion that an HUF existed or that the land was allotted to or held by a joint family. The Court clarified that genealogical relationship alone does not transform individual property into coparcenary property.
Addressing the statutory effect of succession, the High Court held that when a Hindu male dies intestate, Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act governs devolution. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Uttam Vs. Saubhag Singh & Ors. (2016), the bench noted:
“…where the property of a Hindu male devolves upon his Class-I heirs in accordance with Section 8, such devolution brings about succession in accordance with the statutory scheme and the property does not, merely by reason of the relationship between the predecessor and successor, continue to retain the character of coparcenary property so as to confer an independent right by birth upon the next generation.”
The Court held that the 1/3rd share inherited by the appellant’s father constituted self-acquired property in his hands, leaving the appellant with no subsisting coparcenary interest or right to demand partition during his father’s lifetime. The Court added that the appellant’s minority at the time of his grandfather’s death or his subsequent attainment of majority did not alter this statutory devolution.
On the jurisdictional issue, the High Court analyzed Sections 88 and 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, alongside the Supreme Court decision in Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania & Ors. (2019). The Court reiterated that revenue courts possess exclusive jurisdiction to declare khatedari rights over agricultural land:
“…where the plaintiff’s entitlement to khatedari rights itself falls for determination before the competent revenue court, consequential relief concerning the alienation of such land cannot be obtained from the civil court without the foundational right first being determined by the competent forum.”
The Court further observed:
“Unless and until the appellant’s alleged right in the agricultural land is duly declared by the competent revenue court in accordance with Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the present civil suit seeking partition and consequential cancellation of the sale deeds cannot be said to be maintainable in law.”
Decision of the Court
Finding no perversity or jurisdictional error in the trial court’s order, the High Court concluded that the suit failed on both substantive and jurisdictional grounds. The High Court dismissed the civil first appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated February 10, 2026, passed by the Additional District Judge, Pokhran.
Case Details
Case Title: Devaram v. Khetaram & Ors.
Case No.: S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 221/2026
Bench: Justice Farjand Ali
Date: August 20, 2026
