Judgment Intelligence
Petition DismissedDevaram v. Khetaram & Ors.
2026:RJ-JD:40614
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 221/2026
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 20 August 2026
- Bench
- Justice Farjand Ali
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Sections 4, 8; Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 — Sections 88, 207; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 96, Order VII Rule 11; Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 — Section 101
Final Outcome
First appeal dismissed; the judgment and decree of 10.02.2026 of the Additional District Judge, Pokhran, rejecting the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, affirmed (paras 7.8, 8-8.1).
Key holdings
- Descent from the original allottee does not by itself make land coparcenary property (para 6.2).
- Property inherited under Section 8 devolves on the heir individually and gives his son no birthright (paras 6.10-6.12).
- A coparcenary claim must be pleaded first; evidence cannot create a missing pleading (paras 6.13-6.14).
- Minority at the time of succession neither creates nor postpones any right (paras 6.5, 7).
- A khatedari right must be declared by the revenue court before a civil suit to cancel sale deeds (paras 7.4-7.5).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The 75 bighas of land in Pokhran tehsil were allotted to the appellant's grandfather as a landless person under Section 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act; on his intestate death on 24.04.2004 his three sons, including the appellant's father, were recorded with one-third shares each (paras 2, 4, 6.3). Claiming the land as ancestral and a 1/9th share by birth, the appellant sued to cancel a sale deed of 17.04.2025 and later transfers made without his consent (paras 2-2.1). On respondent No. 7's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Additional District Judge, Pokhran dismissed the suit on 10.02.2026 for want of a revenue-court declaration of khatedari rights (paras 1, 2.2).
Court's Findings
The plaint did not plead that the allotment was made to a Hindu Undivided Family or that the grandfather held the land as karta; descent from the original allottee does not establish coparcenary property (paras 6.1-6.2). Section 4 gives the Hindu Succession Act overriding effect but does not decide the character of property; on intestacy the estate devolved on the Class-I heirs under Section 8 (paras 6.7-6.9). Relying on Uttam v. Saubhag Singh, the Court held that property inherited under Section 8 is held in the heir's individual capacity, so the appellant acquired no right by birth in his father's one-third share and could not seek partition in his father's lifetime (paras 6.10-6.12, 6.17). Proof cannot supply a pleading never made, and minority at the time of succession changed nothing (paras 6.5, 6.14, 7). Applying Pyarelal and Sections 88 and 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the Court held that the civil court cannot assume a khatedari right the revenue court has not declared (paras 7.3-7.5).
Legal Principle
Property a son inherits from his father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act is held in his individual capacity; his own son acquires no right in it by birth unless an HUF or coparcenary character is specifically pleaded, and a claimed khatedari share in agricultural land must first be declared by the revenue court (paras 6.12-6.13, 7.5).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Uttam v. Saubhag Singh & Ors. (2016) 160 AIC 1
Property of a Hindu male devolving on Class-I heirs under Section 8 is held in their individual capacity and does not remain coparcenary property conferring a right by birth on the next generation.
- Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania & Ors. (2019) 3 SCC 692
Where entitlement to khatedari rights must be decided by the revenue court, consequential relief on alienation of the land cannot be obtained from the civil court before that right is determined.
