Arjun vs Mukesh

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No…………. of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.157 of 2026)

Arjun & Anr. …Appellants Versus Mukesh & Ors. …Respondents

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Apart from the legal issue involved, a strange family

story unfolds where an old man attempts to protect his land

from his children and grandchild, allegedly wayward, by

gifting it to his great-grandchildren. This man, Rameshwar

was in possession and enjoyment of 3.16 hectares of land

as obtained from his father Chokharam. Rameshwar had

two sons and one daughter, Mahavir, Arjun and Jinku

respectively and a grandson Dalchand, born to Arjun. The Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani gift deed was made by Rameshwar to the children of Date: 2026.03.11 17:27:58 IST Reason:

Page 1 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.157 of 2026

Dalchand, namely, Mukesh, Ramesh and Praveen. The

children of Rameshwar, Arjun and Jinku filed a suit

challenging the gift deed on the contention that they along

with Mahavir, the 5th defendant and Rameshwar, the 4th

defendant had 1/4th share each of the ancestral undivided

property of the Joint Hindu Undivided Family. The three

minors were the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the 6th defendant

was Dalchand, the grandson who died during the

pendency of the suit.

3. Rameshwar, concerned with preservation of his

property and to sustain the gift deed in favour of his great

grandchildren, filed an application under Order VII Rule

11 of the Civil Procedure Code before the Trial Court. He

pleaded that Mahavir, his elder son and Jinku had

separated from the family after their marriage and were

given their due share, despite which the former tried to

cheat him of the property relying on a Will, allegedly

executed by the wife of Rameshwar, who was mentally

unstable. Arjun, his second son is alleged to have

Page 2 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.157 of 2026 murdered his wife upon which Dalchand, the grandson’s

protection was taken over by Rameshwar. Protection of his

great-grandchildren; fell on him when Dalchand too hit the

bottle and wasted himself away, forcing him to gift the

property to the great-grandchildren. Other than the

pitiable story, it was contended that the Civil Court could

not have considered the khatedari rights of the plaintiff

which definitely will have to be determined by the

Revenue Court as per the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The

Trial Court rejected the plaint and the High Court by the

impugned order confirmed such rejection on that sole

ground.

4. We heard Ms. Shobha Gupta, Senior Advocate

appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs and Mr. Gagan

Gupta, Senior Advocate appearing for the

respondents/defendants.

5. Based on the Tenancy Act, it was contended on behalf

of the appellants that if a suit is filed where the question of

khatedari rights arise then necessarily the Civil Court has

Page 3 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.157 of 2026 to raise an issue and refer it to the Revenue Court for

consideration. In the present case in fact before the civil

suit was filed, the plaintiffs had approached the Court of

Sub-Divisional Court, Sikar with a suit for declaration and

permanent injunction numbered as Suit No.01 of 2013

produced as Annexure A-1 along with the application for

permission to file additional documents. On behalf of

respondent it was submitted that unless that suit is

finalized, there is no question of a challenge against the gift

deed being considered.

6. As is found from the Tenancy Act, if a question of

tenancy arises in a civil dispute, the Civil Court would have

to raise an issue and refer it, for consideration of the

tenancy rights, to the Revenue Court. In the present case

the finding is also that only the Revenue Court has the

jurisdiction to decide khatedari rights based on which the

plaint was rejected; while the suit for the relief to declare

the tenancy rights was pending before the Revenue Court,

which fact was not noticed by the Trial Court and the High

Page 4 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.157 of 2026 Court. Even if the suit before the Revenue Court was not

pending, if a dispute is raised with respect to khatedari

rights before the Civil Court, an issue ought to have been

raised and referred to the Revenue Court. The rejection of

the plaint on that ground was highly improper. However,

in the circumstances of the suit pending before the

Revenue Court, we do not think that now there is any

requirement for a reference. The civil suit challenging the

gift deed can be restored and the Trial Court directed to

keep the suit in abeyance till the other suit is decided. If

any of the parties in the civil suit so desires, they can seek

to implead themselves before the Revenue Court for a fair

disposal of the claim of the khatedari rights agitated before

the Revenue Court, which has the jurisdiction to decide

that aspect.

7. On the aforesaid reasoning, we set aside the

impugned order of the High Court and the order of the Trial

Court rejecting the plaint and restore Civil Suit No.29/2016

to the files of Additional District Judge-03, Sikar, Rajasthan.

Page 5 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.157 of 2026 The same shall be kept pending till Suit No.01/2013 filed

before the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikar is

disposed of. The Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer is also

directed to decide the issue and transmit the final order to

the ADJ, Sikar upon which the trial in the suit be resumed

and taken to its logical conclusion.

8. The appeal stands allowed in the aforestated terms.

We make it clear that we have not opined on either the

khatedari rights or on the validity of the gift deed.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

.……….…..…….…………. J.

(SANJAY KUMAR)

.…….….…….……….……. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 27, 2026.

Page 6 of 6 CA @ SLP (C) No.157 of 2026