Jaipur (Raj.) v. Badrinaryan S/o

Judgment

3. Badrinaryan S/o Shri Birda, R/o Village Vatika, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur Babulal S/o Late Shri Gangaram Alias Gangalya, R/o Village Bawdi, Agra Road, Jaipur Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, R/o Gautam Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Since Deceased) 3/1. Gulab Devi W/o Late Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Gautam Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur 3/2. Raju S/o Late Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Gautam Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur 3/2/1. Savitri Devi W/o Late Shri Raju, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Gautam Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur 3/2/2. Hansraj Adopted D/o Late Shri Raju, R/o Gautam Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur 3/3. Om Prakash S/o Late Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Gautam Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur 3/4. Smt. Sooraj D/o S/o Late Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Gautam Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur

5. Shri Ramlal S/o Kanhaiyalal, R/o Gautam Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur Kailash S/o Kanhaiyalal, R/o Gautam Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Since Deceased) 5/1. Smt. Shakuntala W/o Kailash, R/o Gautam Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur 5/2.

Kalu Ram S/o Late Shri Kailash, Through Its Natural Guardian Mother, Smt. Shakuntala, R/o Gautam Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur

6. Amarsingh S/o Late Shri Ramnarayan, R/o Kalyan Nagar Third, Durgapura, Jaipur [2025:RJ-JP:20226] (2 of 19) [CFA-332/2024]

9. Suresh Singh S/o Late Shri Ramnarayan, R/o Kalyan Nagar Third, Durgapura, Jaipur Mangla Ram S/o Gopal, R/o Village Vatika, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur Kishan Lal S/o Gopal, R/o Village Vatika, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur

10. Suraj S/o Gopal, R/o Village Vatika, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur

11. Barji Devi W/o Gangaram, R/o Village Vatika, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Since Deceased) 11/1. Babulal S/o Gangaram Alias Ganglya, R/o Bawdi, Agra Road, Jaipur 11/2. Chhota S/o Gangaram Alias Ganglya, R/o Bawdi, Agra Road, Jaipur

12. Dhannalal S/o Ladhya, R/o Village Vatika, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur

13. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Ramsahai, R/o Kalyan Nagar Third, Sitabari, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Since Deceased) 13/1. Omprakash S/o Ramsahai, R/o Kalyan Nagar Third, Sitabari, Tonk Road, Jaipur 13/2. Suman D/o Ramsahai, R/o Kalyan Nagar, Behind Morani Motors, Tonk Road, Jaipur

14. Smt. Kali Devi W/o Shri Ishwar Lal, R/o Bhanupur Chittora, Renwal, Phagi Road, District Jaipur

15. Smt. Manna Devi W/o Shri Bhomaram, R/o Paharia, Society Renwal, Jaipur

16. Smt. Nathi Devi W/o Shri Babu Lal, R/o Village Paharia, Society Renwal, Jaipur

17. Smt. Kanta Devi W/o Shri Ramavtar Chawla, R/o Shriganganagar, R/o Mehendwas Gate, Sangarpura Jata Pada Road, Purani Tonk, District Tonk, Raj.

18. Tehsildar, Tehsil Amer District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:20226] (3 of 19) [CFA-332/2024] For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Nikhil Simlote For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Girraj P Sharma Mr. Adhiraj Modi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEU ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment REPORTABLE 28/03/2025

1. The instant S.B. Civil First Appeal is preferred by the appellant-plaintiff aggrieved from order dated 20.02.2024 in Civil Suit No.122/2017 (25/2010) passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby a suit preferred by the plaintiff-appellant was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 of CPC.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff while relying upon grounds of the first appeal submitted that whether a suit is barred by law or not and a particular provision is attracted or not is a question of fact and required to be decided after framing the issues and recording of evidence. He further submitted that the plaintiff, a registered Society, entered into an agreement to sell and on basis of agreement to sell, has developed a housing colony and allocated land/plots to its Members. He also referred the facts of the case and submitted that all Members have occupied the land and they were in settled possession over the land. He also submitted that the land in question is not remained as an agricultural land but the trial Court considering that due to revenue record it is an [2025:RJ-JP:20226] (4 of 19) [CFA-332/2024] agricultural land has applied Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1955’) to reject a suit under Section 42 read with Section 207 of the Act of 1955. He further submitted that the appellant-plaintiff is a Society not an individual and provision of Section 42 of the Act of 1955 is not attracted.

3. Learned Senior Advocate while relying upon judgment in case of Chomu Sahakari Kray Vikary Samiti Limited Vs. Jagdeeshprasad Meena and Ors.:MANU/RH/1195/2013 has submitted that since Society is a juristic person, therefore, Section 42 of the Act of 1955 is not applicable. He also relied upon judgment in case of Ramniwas and Ors. Vs. Bhairav Gran Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Ors. :MANU/RH/0094/2017 and submitted that on basis of application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, a suit cannot be rejected. He further placed reliance upon judgment of this Court in case of Santosh Chamar and Ors. Vs. Satyanarayan Sharma and Ors.: MANU/RH/0935/2018 and submitted that the defence of defendant No.10 or any other defendant cannot be raised and looked into by the trial Court while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. He also referred order dated 26.11.2018 of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in case of Surjan Singh Vs. Manchand and Ors. : S.B. Civil First Appeal No.457/2018 and submitted that in an identical situation, a suit was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC after considering bar under Section 42B of the Act of 1955 but a Co-ordinate Bench while considering the matter has allowed the first appeal of plaintiff and remitted [2025:RJ-JP:20226] (5 of 19) [CFA-332/2024] back the matter for decision after framing issues. Learned counsel further relying upon averments made in plaint and also on the documents submitted with plaint has submitted that the land in question is already in possession of individual plot holders and no agricultural activity is in progress, therefore, the Society has every right to maintain a suit on behalf of Members of Society against the defendants and the trial Court has committed serious error while rejecting the suit.

4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents-defendants and he submitted that once a provision of law regulates the filing of the suit in a particular manner, then the suit relating to particular subject matter is required to be filed in accordance with scheme of the Act. He further submitted that the plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance and injunction against defendants who were Members of Scheduled Caste, therefore, Section 42 of the Act of 1955 comes into picture and if a transfer by any Member of Scheduled Caste to any other person not a Member of Scheduled Caste then transfer is hit by Section 42 (b) of the Act of 1955. He submitted that such a civil suit is barred by law by virtue of Section 207 of the Act of 1955.

5. Learned Senior Advocate has further placed reliance upon judgment in case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable & Ors vs Assistant Charity Commissioner & Ors : (2004) 3 SCC 137 and Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs Syed Jalal : (2017) 13 SCC 174 and submitted that at any point of time any objection about maintainability of civil suit can be raised under Order VII [2025:RJ-JP:20226] (6 of 19) [CFA-332/2024] Rule 11 of Order VII CPC and if a plaint does not disclose a cause of action or suit is barred by any law then same has to be rejected by invoking power under Rule 11 of CPC and he submits that if the conditions as stipulated under Rule 11 CPC are fulfilled then the trial Court has no option except to reject the plaint. He further referred and relied upon judgment in case of Bhargavi Constructions and Anr. vs Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Ors.: (2018) 13 SCC 480 and submitted that when the suit is barred by law then same has to be rejected under Rule 11(d) of Order VII of CPC. He also submitted that if a suit is barred by law by declaration in any judgment then also a plaint is liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

6. Learned Senior Advocate further referred judgment in case of Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & Anr.:(2015) 7 SCC 601 and submitted that the provision of Section 42 of the Act of 1955 is also applicable on a juristic person which includes a Housing Society, as in the instant case. He further submitted that the judgment in case of Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & Anr. (supra) is applicable and on basis of this judgment, the plaint was rightly rejected by learned trial Court and there is no scope of interference in the order passed by the trial Court.

7. Heard learned Senior Advocates appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record and also considered the judgments as referred by learned Senior Advocates appearing for both the parties. [2025:RJ-JP:20226] (7 of 19) [CFA-332/2024]

8. In brief, the facts giving rise to the instant first appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff-a Housing Society has filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract, declaration and cancellation of sale deed and injunction with averment that defendant No.1 to 16 and their ancestors who were erstwhile holders of agricultural land situated in village Vatika, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur and details are mentioned in para No.6 of plaint have entered into an agreement with Society on 05.07.1993. Thereafter, within one year the remaining sale consideration was paid by plaintiff-Society. The plaintiff-Society has further developed a scheme over the said land in the name of Radhagovind Farm, Vatika and allotted the same to its Members and handed over the possession to its Members. The plaintiff has further averred that due to rise in prices, the defendants with ulterior motive have sold the property under the agreement to defendant No.17 and executed a sale deed on 12.11.2009. Further, a police case was also registered as FIR No.7/2010. The defendants have filed reply denying the facts mentioned in the plaint but during pendency of civil suit, an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by defendant No.10-Suraj and the trial Court on basis of provision of Section 42 of the Act of 1955 has rejected the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff has no locus to file a suit against the defendant Nos.1 to 17.

9. A perusal of material available on record clearly indicate that the instant appeal is preferred aggrieved from impugned order passed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 42 of the [2025:RJ-JP:20226] (8 of 19) [CFA-332/2024] Act of 1955. Before considering the instant case, it is appropriate to consider law relating to Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

10. The applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in all four civil suits were dismissed by learned trial court observing that the trial Court is required to peruse the plaint and documents filed along with the plaint. The objection raised by defendant(s) is mixed question of fact and law. To decide question of jurisdiction of Civil Court, evidence is required.

11. Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with the grounds for rejection of plaint aiming to prevent frivolous or defective suits. The provision enables the Court to reject a plaint, if certain conditions are satisfied. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is reproduced as under:- Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law : (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision of rule 9: “Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting [2025:RJ-JP:20226] (9 of 19) [CFA-332/2024] the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp- paper, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.”

12. In case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC (1) 467, Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the aforesaid provision has held that the trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not a formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party under Order X of the Code.

13. The object of the said provision is further considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner (supra) and in Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510, and held that no court shall permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in a suit in case the suit does not disclose a cause of action or barred by any law or law of limitation.

14. In case of Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit i.e. before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For [2025:RJ-JP:20226] (10 of 19) [CFA-332/2024] the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendants in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.

15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents to discuss the intent under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by law, court would not permit protraction of the proceedings and it would be necessary to put an end to the shame litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted.

16. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315, Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bound to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time and space of the Courts. The power on the Court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII Rule 11 CPC are required to be strictly adhered to.

17. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an application seeking rejection of a plaint clarified that while determining any application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court should restrict itself to the plaint and should not go into the detail facts as provided under the written statement or even in the [2025:RJ-JP:20226] (11 of 19) [CFA-332/2024] application filed for rejection of plaint. While scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, the Court can read documents annexed and relied upon in the plaint.

18. Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that a plaint should be rejected if the suit is barred by any law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 INSC 458 has observed that plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by law.

19. In case of Madanuri Sri Rama Chandra Murthy vs Syed Jalal (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, if conditions enumerated in said provisions are fulfilled. It is needless to say that the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit. The relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding the application are the averment of the plaint only. If on an entire and meaningful reading of plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing any right to sue, the Court should exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Since the power conferred on the Court to terminate civil action at the threshold is drastic, the conditions enumerated to exercise power of rejection of plaint have to be strictly adhere too.

20. In case of Bhargavi Constructions and Anr. vs Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Ors. (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the expression “barred by any law” includes not only legislative enactments but also judicial decision [2025:RJ-JP:20226] (12 of 19) [CFA-332/2024] of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After considering Article 141 of the Constitution of India, Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed binding effect of law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

21. Having considered the legal position as referred hereinabove, it is crystal clear that a plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on grounds mentioned therein but while considering the application, the Court can only look at plaint and the documents annexed with the plaint or relied upon in plaint which means that a meaningful reading of plaint, with document annexed or relied by plaintiff are required to be considered while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. A plaint which does not disclose a cause of action or which is barred by law, which includes law of limitation can be dismissed at any stage before pronouncement of judgment. The legal position makes it clear that the duty conferred under the Court can be exercised on application of any of the defendant or suo moto by the Court itself so as to save precious judicial time.

22. The legal position till date clearly empowers the Court to reject a suit, if it fulfills the condition as prescribed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC but the only condition is that the Court cannot look into defence or averment made in either the written statement or in application itself. While considering the application, the Court cannot presume that the objection raised about maintainability of suit is a mixed question of facts and law. If law is clear and suit appears to be barred by law then the plaint is necessarily be rejected at very threshold. [2025:RJ-JP:20226] (13 of 19) [CFA-332/2024]

23. Section 9 of CPC provides that the Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except suit of which cognizance is expressly or impliedly barred. It is well-settled that consent of parties cannot confer nor take away jurisdiction of any Court which means if a Civil Court has jurisdiction neither acquiescence nor waiver or estoppel can create the same.

24. In case of A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr. AIR 1988 SC 1531, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power of Court or jurisdiction is legislative in character. In case of Chief Engineer, Hydel Project & Ors vs Ravinder Nath & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 350, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a decree passed without jurisdiction is nullity and its invalidity can be set up even at the stage of execution. It is essentially based on a principle “coram non judice”. In case of Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others AIR 1954 SC 340 has held that a defect of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and such a basic and fundamental defect cannot be cured by consent of the parties. Conversely, if a Court to decide a dispute, the same cannot be taken away or ousted by consent of the parties. In case of Abdulla Bin Ali Vs. Gullapa & Ors. (1985) 2 SCC 54, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction does not depend upon the defence taken by the defendants in the written statement. A similar view was expressed in case of Bank of Baroda vs Moti Bhai And Ors. (1985) 1 SCC 475 and held that on the question of jurisdiction, one must always have regard to the substance of the matter and not to the form of the suit. [2025:RJ-JP:20226] (14 of 19) [CFA-332/2024]

25. In view of legal position about jurisdiction of civil Court, it is apparently clear that in case suit is expressly or impliedly barred then the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and continue the civil suit. In case a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain or continue a civil suit then a plaint is required to be rejected under Order VII of Rule 11(d) of CPC. Section 42 of the Act of 1955 and effect on Society:-

26. The averments in the plaint indicate that the suit is filed by a Housing Society which developed a housing plan and allotted the plots to its Members and after the allotment the possession of land is also handed over to the Members. Thus, the land claimed by defendants is not in same position as it were before development of Housing Society plan. The facts narrated in plant also made it clear that still the land is registered in the revenue records as an agricultural land. There is no record to reflect that either the land is converted or any process under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is completed. The averments in plaint clearly show that the land in question is an agricultural land, though, some subsequent developments were also made upon the land.

27. Section 42 of the Act of 1955 provides for restriction on sale, gift and bequeath of an agricultural land by a Khatedar who is a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. This restriction is not applicable when the tranferee is also a member of Scheduled Casts or Scheduled Tribes. The restriction is general in nature. The provision of Section 42 of the Act of 1955 is reproduced as Under:- [2025:RJ-JP:20226] (15 of 19) [CFA-332/2024] “42. General restrictions on sale, gift and bequest— The sale, gift or bequest by a Khatedar tenants of his interest in the whole or part of his holding shall be void, if — (a) Omitted. (b) such sale, gift or bequest is by a number of Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste, or by a member of a Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who in not a member of the Scheduled Tribe. [(bb) such sale, gift or bequest, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b), is by a member of Saharia Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of the said Saharia tribe.] (c) Omitted. 42A. Omitted. 42B. Declaration as valid of sale, gift and bequest— Where any sale, gift or holding before the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1992 Act No. 22 of 1992 was void on account of contravention of any of the provisions of clause (a) of section 42, as it stood before the said amendment Act of 1992, such sale, gift or bequest may be declared to be valid by the Collector or any officer or authority empowered by the State Government in this behalf on an application made to him or it within such time and in such manner and on payment of such fee and penalty as may be prescribed: Provided that- (a) - such sale, sift or bequest was otherwise legally valid and in conformity with the provisions of the laws for the time being in force except those contained in clause (a) of section 42 as aforesaid: (b) the parties to the sale, or bequest comply with all the terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the rules or by any special or general order: (c) the payment is -made of such premium or penalty as may be prescribed: (d) the applicant undertakes to pay urban assessment levied at such rate and in accordance with such manner as may be prescribed” [2025:RJ-JP:20226] (16 of 19) [CFA-332/2024]

28. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Chomu Sahakari Kray Vikary Samiti Limited Vs. Jagdeeshprasad Meena and Ors. (supra) while considering the provision of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and Section 42 of the Act of 1955 has held that there is no bar in filing of civil suit by a Society or a Company incorporated under the relevant statute as same is a juristic person. The order of rejection of plaint was set aside and matter was remitted back to the trial Court. In case of Ramniwas and Ors. Vs. Bhairav Gran Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Ors. (supra) another Co-ordinate Bench while considering the judgment in case of Chomu Sahakari Kray Vikary Samiti Limited Vs. Jagdeeshprasad Meena and Ors. (supra) has observed that the suit filed by a Society is maintainable. In case of Santosh Chamar and Ors. Vs. Satyanarayan Sharma and Ors. (supra) another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering the provision of Section 42 of the Act of 1955 has observed that the objection is a mix question of fact and law and same can be decided after framing the issues. In case of Surjan Singh Vs. Manchand and Ors. (supra) another Co-ordinate Bench while considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of P.V. Guru Raj Reddy and Anr. Vs. P. Neeradha Reddy and Ors. (2015) 8 SCC 331 in relation to Section 42(B) of the Act of 1955 has observed that the objection relating to bar of suit has to be decided as preliminary issue, after filing of written statement and setting aside the order passed by the trial Court. [2025:RJ-JP:20226] (17 of 19) [CFA-332/2024]

29. A Larger Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & Anr. (supra) has considered Section 42 of the Act of 1955 when agreement to sell was entered by members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes with a Society. After considering the Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India has observed that a Housing Society is not a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Hon’ble Supreme Court has answered a question “Whether in view of Section 42 of the Act of 1955, the transactions entered into by Society with the original Khatedars are void and whether on the basis, it had a right to maintain the reference and to claim compensation?” The agreement of Society were claimed to be executed on 17.02.1974,

21.02.1974 & 21.02.1976.

30. It was held that the provision of Section 42 of the Act of 1955 declares the transaction entered into by a Member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to any other person other than Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to be void. The agreements entered with the khatedars by the Society were clearly void as per mandate of Section 42 of the Act of 1955.

31. Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered a defence of Society that the Society is a juristic person and same cannot be said to in- contravention of Section 42 of the Act of 1955. The Society cannot be said to be a person included in the notification issued under Article 341 of the Constitution of India as the Article 341 envisages notification to be issued for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes in relation of State or Union Territory. [2025:RJ-JP:20226] (18 of 19) [CFA-332/2024]

32. While referring judgment in case of State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Aanjaney Organic Herbal Pvt.Ltd. : (2012) 10 SCC 383 has held that the bar under Section 42 of the Act of 1955 is also attracted to a juristic person.

33. In view of discussion made hereinabove, it is apparent on record that the plaintiff is a Society and defendant Nos.1 to 17 are Members belonging to Scheduled Castes. Learned Senior Advocate for plaintiff claiming to be a juristic person has defended the institution of civil suit. The law over the point as discussed hereinabove clearly indicate that the bar under Section 42 of the Act of 1955 is also applicable when the transfer was made to a Society or a Company (juristic person).

34. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the judgments of Co-ordinate Bench as referred by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant – plaintiff are not applicable and not helpful to buttress the arguments that the matter requires consideration only after framing the issue as it is a mixed question of fact and law. The judgments of Co-ordinate Bench in case of Chomu Sahakari Kray Vikary Samiti Limited Vs. Jagdeeshprasad Meena and Ors. (supra), Ramniwas and Ors. Vs. Bhairav Gran Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Ors. (supra), Santosh Chamar and Ors. Vs. Satyanarayan Sharma and Ors.(supra) and Surjan Singh Vs. Manchand and Ors. (supra) are not applicable to support the case of appellant- plaintiff.

35. Order VII Rule 11 of CPC provides for rejection of plaint when a suit is barred by any law. Here in this case, in wake of [2025:RJ-JP:20226] (19 of 19) [CFA-332/2024] judgment of Larger Bench in case of Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & Anr. (supra), there remains no doubt that a suit filed by a Society against any member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes for specific performance or claiming a right on agricultural land is not maintainable as the Society has no locus to institute a suit. If any such suit is filed, then same is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. Thus, the instant civil first appeal sans merits and same is liable to be dismissed.

36. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant Civil First Appeal is hereby dismissed and the judgment dated

20.02.2024 is hereby affirmed.

37. Misc. application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

38. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/154