Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) A challenge has been made to the Judgment dt. 23.3.2010 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (hereinafter 'the Board') allowing the appeal filed by the respondent defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') and dismissing the petitioners plaintiffs (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') suit for declaration, partition, possession and permanent injunction laid before SDO, Chaksu in respect of agricultural lands situate in Khasra Nos. 162 to 191, 179/1192, 180/11923, 301, 302, 303, 305 and 306 situate in Village Sheel Ki Dungri, Tehsil Chaksu District Jaipur. The facts of the case are that on service of summons in the plaintiffs suit the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC which was allowed on 12.6.2006 and the plaint rejected. An appeal by the plaintiffs to the Rajasthan Appellate Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter 'the RAA') however was allowed on 22.5.2009 and the matter remanded to the SDO, Chaksu for consideration on merits and determination of all issues as framed after filing of the defendant's written statement. An appeal to the Board by the defendant followed challenging the RRA's order in appeal. The Board had set aside the judgment dt. 22.5.2009 passed by the RAA and restored that of 12.6.2006 passed by the SDO, Chaksu.
(2.) I have heard counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendant and perused the impugned Judgment dt. 23.3.2010 passed by the Board.
(3.) The Board on consideration of the matter has held that the plaintiffs' suit was laid 42 years after mutation entries in the name of the defendant on the basis of his adoption - as the son of Mangla. And until the belated filing of the suit the defendant was the recorded khatedar of the suit land, in possession and it was inconceivable that the plaintiffs were not aware of the entry of the defendant's name in the revenue record in view of the fact that they belonged to the same extended family and were residents of the same village. The Board also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Narain Sarin (dead) through LRs and others vs. Laxmi Devi & Ors., : (2002) 10 SCC 501 wherein it has been held that where the litigation was utterly vexatious and an apparent abuse of process of Court (as evident in that case where a challenge was laid 40 years subsequent to the cause of action), the suit was liable to be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Sec. 151 CPC.;