Learned counsel for v. Shubhendra Pilania

Hement Kumar S/o Shri Mohanlal, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Nahriya, Post Shyampura, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota (Raj.)

2. Sunita Nagar D/o Shri Mohanlal, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village Nahriya, Post Shyampura, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota (Raj.) plaintiffs/respondents

3. Mohan Lal S/o Shri Fatta, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Village Nahriya, Post Shyampura, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota (Raj.)

4. Sub-Registrar And Tehsildar, Sangod, District Kota (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Advocate assisted by Mr. Rashtra Bandhu For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Kumar Yadav, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 06/03/2025 Order

1. Instant S.B. Civil Revision Petition is preferred by petitioners defendant aggrieved from dismissal of application under order VII rule 11 CPC on 07.09.2022 in civil suit No. 192/2021 by learned Additional District Judge No.5, Kota. [2025:RJ-JP:10602] (2 of 5) [CR-206/2022]

2. Learned counsel for petitioners while placing reliance upon Pyare Lal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (2019) 3 SCC 692 submits that plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration of sale deed dated

16.07.2021 as null and void, though, they are not a Khatedar tenant on suit property. He further submits that the sale deed dated 16.07.2021 was executed by father of both the plaintiffs as he was a Khatedar tenant. He further submits that and after sale of agricultural land, a suit for declaration cannot be filed in civil Court unless a specific declaration about Khatedari rights is made in favor of plaintiffs. He further submitted that the Civil Court is not competent to declare plaintiffs as Khatedar tenant of suit property. At last, he submitted that suit is barred under Section 207 read with Section 256 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by counsel for respondent-plaintiff on the ground that the objections raised by the petitioners can be considered only after recording of evidence of parties and the trial court has not committed any error while dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. He further places reliance upon judgment in case of Smt. Aruna Vs. Suraj Kumar & Anr., S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 93/2022 by a Coordinate Bench of this court at Jodhpur and submitted that the revenue entries are only for fiscal purposes and on the basis of revenue entries a suit of plaintiff cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. At last, he submitted that a suit to challenge sale deed can only be filed and maintained before the Civil Court. [2025:RJ-JP:10602] (3 of 5) [CR-206/2022]

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsels for both the parties.

5. Brief facts giving rise to instant revision petition are that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) have filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 16.07.2021 with relief of permanent injunction against present petitioners and respondent No.3 Mohanlal (father of plaintiffs). A sale deed was registered with respect to agriculture land as mentioned in para No.1 of plaint, in favor of both the petitioners by respondent No.3- Mohanlal on 16.07.2021 after receipt of sale consideration of ₹12 lacs. Thus, it is a complete sale under the law.

6. During pendency of civil suit, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by the present petitioners and same was dismissed on 07.09.2022. A perusal of material placed on record clearly indicate that the land in question is an agriculture land and same is recorded in tenancy of respondent No.3 Mohanlal, father of both the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have claimed that agriculture land is an ancestral property and their father Mohanlal has no right and authority to transfer the land by executing registered sale deed. Here in this case, no relief is claimed about partition of ancestral property as same is not maintainable, in view of Section 8 to 10 of Hindu Succession Act, as father of both the plaintiffs is alive on date of filing of civil suit. The plaintiffs are neither Khatedar nor having any joint tenancy in revenue record with defendant No.3 (respondent No.3)- Mohan Lal.

7. A suit is not filed on the basis of fraud or any other ground which may impact competency of defendant No.3. Here, in this [2025:RJ-JP:10602] (4 of 5) [CR-206/2022] case, the plaintiffs are neither disclosed any record nor a Khatedar tenant of suit property. In case of Smt. Aruna Vs. Suraj Kumar (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench has considered almost similar issue and held that the revenue entries are only purpose of fiscal entries. Similarly, the cause of action and limitation are mixed question of facts and law.

8. In case of Pyare Lal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provision under section 207 and 256 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act has observed that all matters triable or exclusively dealt by Revenue Court are required to be considered by the Revenue Court. Further, it was held that a decree seeking declaration about Khatedari right cannot be maintained before the Civil Court. Though, in case of Pyare Lal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (supra), a suit for declaration of Khatedari right was pending before the Revenue Court then it was held that the appellant has no right to seek relief from a Civil Court, without first getting his Khatedari rights decreed by the Revenue Court. Herein, this case it is apparent that petitioners have purchased agricultural land from recorded Khatedar, who is father of plaintiffs and Khatedar has succeeded the property under Section 8 to 10 of Hindu Succession Act.

9. A sale deed was executed by father of plaintiffs after receiving the full consideration but now, a civil suit was filed by son and daughter claiming to be co-sharer in an agricultural land without declaration of Khatedari right. Herein, no relief for partition was claimed. Similarly, there is no allegation about fraud or mis-representation or of similar nature. [2025:RJ-JP:10602] (5 of 5) [CR-206/2022]

10. Considering aforesaid, a suit like present one is not maintainable unless a specific prayer either for partition or declaration of Khatedari right is made before the competent Courts. Simply a suit for declaration by paying a small amount of Court fee under the provisions of Rajasthan Court fee and Suit Valuation Act is not maintainable, thus, the Trial Court has committed a serious error while rejecting application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

11. In view of aforesaid, the instant civil revision petition is hereby allowed and impugned order dated 07.09.2022 is set aside. An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is allowed and the plaint is hereby rejected.

12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. MONU /94 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J