Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kalu Ram Sharma vs Vishesh Kumar And Others ... on 25 August, 2023
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023:RJ-JP:19247]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 7/2012
Kalu Ram Sharma, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Shri Ram
Chandra Sharma, R/o 32, Gulab Bhawan, Hatiram Darwaja,
Ratlam.
----Defendant-Petitioner
Versus
1. Vishesh Kumar Sharma, aged 32 years, S/o Shri Chunni
Lal Sharma.
2. Smt. Janki Devi W/o Late Shri Chunni Lal,
Both R/o Village Hirapur, Post Kapren, Tehsil Keshavrai
Patan, District Bundi.
........Plaintiffs-Respondents
3. Shri Hiribai D/o Late Ram Chandra, W/o Shri Bajarang Lal, R/o Sadguru Prakashan Collage Road, Shegown, Maharshtra.
4. Kala Devi D/o Ram Chandra W/o Shyam Lal R/o A-155, Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam, M.P
5. Mangi Bai D/o Late Shri Balu W/o Late Shri Kalyan Mal, R/o 32, Jooni, Indore MP
6. Geeta Bai D/o Late Shri Balu W/o Late Shri Prabhu Lal, R/o Maszid Wali Gali, Dcm. Govind Nagar, Kota
7. Shanti Bai D/o Late Shri Balu W/o Narendra Kumar R/o Pataliya Road Lines, 32, Jooni, Indore MP
8. Rajesh S/o Late Ram Chandra, R/o 32, Gulab Bhawan 32, Hatiram Darwaja, Ratlam MP
9. Sub Registrar, Sanganer, Tehsil Sanganer, Distrrict Jaipur
10. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar Sanganer District Jaipur
----Defendant (Proforma)Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pratyush Sharma with Ms. Akansha Shringi for Mr. Ravi Bhojak For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Sharma Saraswat with Mr. Sahil Parashar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:32:15 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19247] (2 of 6) [CR-7/2012] Judgment / Order 25/08/2023 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.10.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur, District Jaipur (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") in Civil Suit No.07/2009 whereby, an application filed by the defendant/petitioner (for brevity, "the defendant") under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the respondents no.1 & 2/plaintiffs (for brevity, "the plaintiffs") filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the defendant and the proforma respondents no.3 to 10 stating therein that are undivided ancestral properties of the parties comprising of a residential house and a parcel of agricultural land situated in Village Khetapur, Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur. Therein, the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC stating therein that since the suit is hit by Section 207 of the Rejasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for brevity, "the Act of 1955"), the plaint deserves to be rejected. The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 24.10.2011, impugned herein.
Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the defendant submits that the suit for partition involving agricultural land is not maintainable before the Civil Court. He submits that without giving proper description of the residential house, the plaint has cleverly been drafted to oust the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court. He, therefore, prays that the revision petition be allowed, the order dated 24.10.2011 be quashed and set aside (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:32:15 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19247] (3 of 6) [CR-7/2012] and the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC be allowed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that the learned trial Court did not err in rejecting the application filed by the defendant. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the revision petition. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon a judgment of this Court in case of Janki Devi Vs. Maniram & Ors.:2000(3) WLC 47.
Heard. Considered.
The learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the defendant on the premise that a suit filed for partition involving agricultural as also non-agricultural property, is triable only by a Civil Court. A perusal of the plaint reveals that the suit for partition and permanent injunction has been filed involving the residential house as also the agricultural land. In identical facts, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Janki Devi (supra), held as under:
"17. The expression 'relating to matters dealt with in this Act', holds the key to determine the scope and ambit of the suits and applications of the nature specified in third schedule, which are to be exclusively triable by the revenue court and in respect of which, the jurisdiction of civil court has been excluded. According to me, a suit for declaration of right of inheritance in respect of the estate left by the deceased is not a suit relating to the matters dealt with under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and merely because as a consequence of declaration of such rights in agricultural land can be acquired or denied, it does not become proceedings relating to the matters deal with the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Right of inheritance is governed by law of inheritance. Law of inheritance deals with succession to the total estate left by a deceased. It does not restrict (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:32:15 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:19247] (4 of 6) [CR-7/2012] itself to specific properties. It is merely an incidence of vesting of property by succession on the death of a person that a person may claim share in specific properties. Such inheritance may be intestate succession or by way of testamentary succession. The Tenancy Act has not been tinkered with law of inheritance. In this connection, it is also pertinent to notice that under Sec. 38 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, while declaring the agricultural tenancy to be heritable but not transferable, the Act itself has not provided any special mode of inheritance but has left it to be followed in accordance with the personal laws of the parties concerned. The provisions of Secs. 38,39 and 40 of the Act to the extent they relate to the heritable nature of the rights in the agricultural land appears to be declaratory and not by way of making provision for inheritance. In absence of the provisions like Secs. 38, 39 and 40, the result would have been the same. The rights in agricultural land are undoubtedly rights which are heritable and in absence of any provision to the contrary, would have been heritable even in absence of the provision under Sec. 38 of the Act and would be governed by the personal laws in the matter of testamentary and intestate succession. Therefore, it cannot be said that the question relating to the succession of property of a deceased are disputes 'relating to matters dealt with under this Act.'
18. The fact that as a consequence of resolving of such disputes, it results in recognition and de-recognition of rights in respect of agricultural land also, does not bring that case within the purview of the nature of suits and applications dealt with under third Schedule, which all must necessarily relate to the matters dealt under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and not de hors those matters.
19. Be that as it may, this question need not detain any further in this case as it is not necessary to go into this question in detail at this juncture inasmuch as there is no dispute between the parties that this is a case which deals with the right of inheritance in respect of a composite property, which partly consisted of agricultural land and partly of non- agricultural immoveable property and the suit in that respect is triable by the civil court only.(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:32:15 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:19247] (5 of 6) [CR-7/2012] Attention in this respect was invited to a decision of this Court in Manraj vs. Rameshwar 1969 RLW 507.
20. In Manraj's case (supra), the plaintiff respondent filed a suit for cancellation of gift of agricultural and abadi land on the ground that the plaintiff was the adopted son of defendant, in the civil court. The objection as to the jurisdiction was raised before the appellate court. While deciding the second appeal, this Court said that on a perusal of the gift deed, it is clear that both the agricultural and non-agricultural properties were gifted to Manji. It was not disputed that the suit relating to such composite property is triable by the Civil Court. The above view was already taken by this Court in Rattu vs. Mala [1968 RLW 375]. In that case, the suit was for permanent injunction in respect of agricultural as well as other non-agricultural immoveable properties. The court held that a composite suit respecting agricultural and non- agricultural properties arising from one cause of action is triable by the civil court only. The court drew support from the provisions of Sec. 242 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which goes to show that the legislature contemplated that a composite suit shall be instituted in the civil court which shall frame an issue on the plea of tenancy in respect of agricultural land and remit it for decision to the appropriate revenue court. Therefore, even assuming that suit was for claiming right in agricultural land by partition was a suit relating to matter dealt with under the Tenancy Act, the cause of partition being the claim founded on joint tenancy of the entire estate including agricultural and non- agricultural property and not a claim of individual property was triable by civil court.
21. The Legislature has not favoured multiplicity of proceedings in respect of cause of action relating to matters covered by the Tenancy Act solely on the basis of the court which ought to have tried the dispute is further apparent from the provision relating to jurisdiction of the civil court in dealing with the matters which are though triable by the revenue courts but have been decided by the civil courts."(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:32:15 PM)
[2023:RJ-JP:19247] (6 of 6) [CR-7/2012] In the backdrop of aforesaid authoritative judicial pronouncement, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order dated 24.10.2011.
In view thereof, this revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.
However, looking to the life of the suit, the learned trial Court is requested to expedite its trial.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Sudha/11 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:32:15 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)