Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahaveer Lunia vs Vinod Infra Developers Ltd on 31 January, 2025
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2025:RJ-JD:3456]
REPORTABLE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 99/2023
1. Mahaveer Lunia S/o Shri Jawari Lal Lunia, Aged About 50
Years, Resident Of B-32, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
2. Mukesh Lunia S/o Shri Jawari Lal Lunia, Aged About 45
Years, Resident Of B-32, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
3. Lokesh Jain S/o Shri Jawari Lal Lunia, Aged About 33
Years, Resident Of B-32, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
4. Khush Jain S/o Shri Jawari Lal Lunia, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of B-32, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Vinod Infra Developers Ltd., Registered Address- 110,
Adeshwar Tower, 3Rd Chopasni Road, Jodhpur Through
Its Managing Director Shri Vinod Singhvi S/o Shri Umed
Mal Singhvi, Resident Of-3, Pal Link Road, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Sub Registrar (Iv), Kachahparp Parisar, Jodhpur.
4. Rambhadeep Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Registered Address 1-2,
Khassra No. 775/79 Evergreen Nagar, Aiims Road, Opp.
Kushal Nagar, Shobhavaton Ki Dhani, Jodhpur Through Its
Authorized Director Jitendra Kumar S/o Shri Deep Chand
Sankhla, Resident Of Bhaskar Nagar, Pal Road,
Shobhavaton Ki Dhani, Jodhpur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (2 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saransh Vij
For Respondent(s) : Mr. OP Mehta
Mr. Hem Raj Soni
Mr. Vasu Dev Gaur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order Reserved on :- 16.01.2025 Pronounced on :- 31.01.2025
1. The parties were heard at length. Perused their respective written arguments.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 14.07.2023 passed in Civil Original Suit No.122/2022 by the learned Additional District Judge No.7, Jodhpur, whereby, the learned Additional District Judge refused the prayer of the petitioners to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
3. A brief background is that respondent No.1-Vinod Infra Developers Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act had brought the aforesaid suit against the petitioners for declaration of sale in respect of the agricultural land made through registered deed on 19.07.2022 in favour of the petitioners as null and void and not affecting the right and interest of the plaintiff. Further prayer was for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant-petitioners from developing the said land or making any construction over that.
4. It is not disputed that the plaintiff-company had purchased the Khasras mentioned in the plaint ad-measuring 18 Bigha 15 (Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:3456] (3 of 22) [CR-99/2023] Biswa in village Pal in the District of Jodhpur from different persons through registered sale-deeds in and around the year 2013. Thereafter, name of the company got recorded in the revenue records. On 23.05.2014, the Board of Directors of the Company resolved to authorize Mr. Vinod Singhvi, Managing Director of the Company and Mr. Mahaveer Lunia, authorized representative of the Company to sell the suit Khasras.
The resolution reads as follows :
"RESOLVED THAT the board of Directors of the Company be and hereby authorized Mr. Vinod Singhvi, Managing Director of the company and Mr. Mahaveer Luniya Authorised Represtative of the Company any one of them to sell the 18.15 Bigha Agricultural Land situated at Khasra No. 175, 175/2, 175/4 175/5, 175/6, 175/7, Gram Pal, Jodhpur in the name of Company. FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of Directors of the Company be and is hereby authorized Mr. Vinod Singhvi, Managing Director of the Company to execute the Special Power of Attorney for the registering the sell documents at the Registrar Department, Jodhpur. FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of Directors of the Company be and is hereby authorized Mr. Vinod Singhvi, Managing Director of the Company and Mr. Mahaveer Lunilya Authorised Representative of the Company to do and perform all such acts, deeds, documents and things as may be necessary, desirable or expedient to give effect to this resolution"
5. It is worth to mention here that Mr. Vinod Singhvi, the Managing Director is the main player of the dispute. Now he is authorized, to file the referred suit, by the Board of Directors. Mr. Vinod Singhvi executed a General Power of Attorney in favour (Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:3456] (4 of 22) [CR-99/2023] of Mahaveer Lunia on the very next day i.e. 24.05.2014 making a detailed reference as to how the Khasras were acquired and from whom it were acquired and authorizing Mahaveer Lunia, one of the petitioners to sell the aforesaid Khasras of the Company or to enter into an agreement to sale and receive the consideration money against valid receipts as well as to execute and register sale-deeds in respect of those properties.
On 24.05.2014 itself, Mr. Vinod Singhvi, as Managing Director of the plaintiff-Company, entered into an agreement to sale the suit property to the petitioners. In the agreement, it is specifically mentioned that the entire suit property was sold at the rate of rupees ten lakhs per Bigha, having total consideration money of rupees seven crore fifty lakhs. There is details of the cheques, whereby, consideration money was paid are disclosed in the said agreement and the same makes it evident that the entire consideration money was already paid through different cheques on the date of agreement itself and possession of the property was handed over to the purchasers (petitioners). There is averment that the land under transfer are free from any encumbrance nor any other agreement exists in respect of the said land and it is clear in all respects so far title is concerned. The agreement clearly stipulates that the vendor/plaintiff would execute register sale-deed in favour of the purchaser under agreement or in favour of any other person as desired by the purchasers under the agreement.
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:3456] (5 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
6. Since the original sale-deeds of the sold property was impounded by the Collector due to non-payment of sufficient stamp duty, a copy of the same was handed over to the purchasers. Later-on, on 05.03.2022, all the original sale-deeds was handed over by the vendor plaintiff to the purchasers. On 21.07.2014, all the Directors of the plaintiff-company executed a consent paper in favour of the purchaser-defendants stating therein that by resolution dated 23.05.2014, Director Vinod Singhvi and authorized representative Mahaveer Lunia were authorized to execute sale-deed in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff-company undertakes that in future either the present office bearer or any shareholder would not challenge the sale transaction made in favour of the purchaser. The entire responsibility would be of the company to ensure that the land may not escape from the possession of the purchaser.
7. On 24.05.2022, the Company suo moto took resolution without notice to the purchasers under agreement or disclosing any reason for fresh resolution revoking all the authorizations to Mr. Vinod Singhvi, Managing Director of the Company and Mahaveer Lunia as done by Resolution dated 24.05.2014.
The resolution dated 24.05.2022 reads as follows :
"RESOLVED THAT the board of Directors of the Company be and is hereby revoked the authorization granted in favour of Mr. Vinod Singhvi, Managing Director of the company and Mr. Mahaveer Luniya to sell or do any all in relation to 18 Bigha 15 Biswsa agricultural Land situated at Khasra No.175, 175/2, 175/4 175/5, 175/6, 175/7, Gram Pal, Jodhpur in the name of Company.(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (6 of 22) [CR-99/2023] "FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of Directors of the Company be and is hereby authorized Mr. Vinod Singhvi, Managing Director of the Company to immediately cancel the Power of Attorney Executed on Dated 24.05.2014 in favour of Shri Mahaveer Luniya. FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of Directors of the Company revokes all the authorization granted to Mr. Vinod Singhvi, Managing Director of the Company and Mr. Mahaveer Luniya to not do anything or act in any manner on behalf of the Company. The Company shall not be bound by any action taken by them on behalf of the Company, any action taken undertook by them is hereby cancelled and declared as non-est. FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of Directors of the Company authorized Mr. Vinod Singhvi, Managing Director of the Company to do and perform all such acts, deeds, documents and things as may be necessary, desirable or expedient to give effect to this resolution"
8. On 27.05.2022, Mr. Vinod Singhvi canceled the General Power of Attorney in favour of Mahaveer Lunia unilaterally. On 09.07.2022, this cancellation was published in the daily news paper for notice to the public in general. On 14.07.2022, Mahaveer Lunia executed the registered sale-deed in pursuance of authorization and agreement made in the year 2014 by the plaintiff-company in favour of the petitioners.
9. The action of the plaintiff in unilaterally cancelling the authorization as well as General Power of Attorney after many years of the agreement to sale without notice to the beneficiary of the agreement (petitioners) goes to show malice on the part of the plaintiff. There is no reason as to why authority of the Managing Director was revoked and very soon the same Managing (Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:3456] (7 of 22) [CR-99/2023] Director was authorized to file the present suit. The action of the plaintiff speaks volumes against their bonafides and fair play.
10. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 filed the present suit through the same Vinod Singhvi, the Managing Director for declaration of the registered sale-deed made in favour of the petitioners aforesaid as null and void and not binding on the company. The plaintiff asserted in the plaint that in fact it was a mortgage transaction and since the loan was for a longer period, on the insistence of the petitioners, the nature of the document executed was "an agreement to sale" dated 23.05.2014. It is further stated that on the insistence of the petitioners mainly for the reason that the petitioners had shown the aforesaid purchase transaction in their Book of accounts as well as Income Tax Return, the plaintiff-company also showed in their Book of accounts and Income Tax Return that the transaction was a sale transaction.
11. Besides filing written statement, in the application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. the petitioners clearly stated that suit was filed with false and concocted statements disclosing no meaningful cause of action. Hence, the suit was fit to be dismissed at the preliminary stage as no triable cause of action was disclosed in the plaint. The petitioners further asserted that the suit property was agricultural land and on the date of institution of the suit, the plaintiff-company was not recorded as Khatedar in the revenue record, therefore, the plaintiff should have sought for a declaration of Khatedari right first before the Revenue Court only (Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:3456] (8 of 22) [CR-99/2023] thereafter, the relief claimed in the plaint was maintainable before the Civil Court. The petitioners have referred that their name was mutated in the revenue records on 20.07.2022 in pursuance of the sale-deed executed in their favour and the suit was filed in November 2022. The petitioners asserted that court fee was not paid as per market value of the suit property for cancellation of sale-deed, therefore, on this ground also, the plaint was fit to be rejected.
12. The plaintiff-respondents contested the aforesaid prayer and submitted that since the sale-deed was executed by a person having no authority or title over the property on the date of sale, the plaintiff had adjudicable cause. Furthermore, the defendant- petitioners cannot deny the title of the plaintiff because they claim to have purchased the property from the plaintiff company. It is not a case that plaintiff was never recorded as a Khatedar, rather they were recorded and after registration of the sale-deed under challenge, the revenue authorities as per their rules got name of the petitioners mutated. If the sale-deed would be cancelled in the civil suit, there would be automatic revival of mutation in name of the plaintiff.
13. The learned trial Court did not consider whether the plaint was illusionary one or discloses a real cause of action. Regarding bar of the suit under the law, the trial Judge said that it is a mixed question of law and fact and would be decided as a issue during trial.
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:3456] (9 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
14. It is worth to mention here that grounds No.(b) and (c) of Rule 11 Order VII C.P.C. were not available to the petitioners, as the Court had not directed the plaintiff to correct the valuation within time specified by the Court or to pay deficit court fee within time specified by the Court.
15. In the plaint, the plaintiff has admitted execution of the agreement to sale with the petitioners and acceptance of the consideration money through cheques in their bank account. They have further admitted that possession of sold land was handed-over over to the petitioners at the time of agreement itself. There is no cheat of paper even to remotely suggest that the transaction between the parties in respect of the suit property was a mortgage transaction as no repayment of money was secured.
16. Now, the question arises whether the averment made in the plaint discloses a real cause of action or is result of clever drafting which creates illusion of cause of action. Identical issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)(D) THR LRS & Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366. The relevant paragraphs are being reproduced below :
"12.7 The test for exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the documents relied upon, would the same result in a decree being passed. This test was laid down in Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V.Sea Success I & Anr., [(2004) 9 SCC 512] which reads as :(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (10 of 22) [CR-99/2023] "139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not is essentially a question of fact.
But whether it does or does not must be found out from reading the plaint itself. For the said purpose, the averments made in the plaint in their entirety must be held to be correct. The test is as to whether if the averments made in the plaint are taken to be correct in their entirety, a decree would be passed."
In Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. Hede & Co. [(2007) 5 SCC 614] the Court further held that it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not merely the form, which has to be looked into. The plaint has to be construed as it stands, without addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations are true in fact [(D.Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman, {(1999) 3 SCC 267}].
12.8 If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and without any merit, and does not disclose a right to sue, the court would be justified in exercising the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
12.9 The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC may be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit, either before registering the plaint, or after issuing summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of the trial, as held by this Court in the judgment of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 1 SCC 557]. The plea that once issues are framed, the matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled by this Court in Azhar Hussain.
12.10 The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint "shall" be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clause
(a) to (e) are made out. If the Court finds that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the suit is barred by any law, the Court has no option, but to reject the plaint. "Cause of action" means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. It consists of a bundle of material facts, (Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:3456] (11 of 22) [CR-99/2023] which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the suit.
In Swamy Atmanand v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam [(2005) 10 SCC 51] this Court held :
"24. A cause of action, thus, means every fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts, which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act, no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded"
In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr.
[(1977) 4 SCC 467] this Court held that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC what is required to be decided is whether the plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something purely illusory, in the following words :-
"5....The learned Munsiff must remember that if on a meaningful -
not formal - reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his power under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.
taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing..."
Subsequently, in I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, [(1998) 2 SCC 70] this Court held that law cannot permit clever drafting which creates illusions of a cause of action. What is (Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:3456] (12 of 22) [CR-99/2023] required is that a clear right must be made out in the plaint.
If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it has created the illusion of a cause of action, this Court in Madanuri Sri Ramachandra Murthy v. Syed Jalal [(2017) 13 SCC 174] held that it should be nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at the earliest stage.
The Court must be vigilant against any camouflage or suppression, and determine whether the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the court."
17. In the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors. Vs. Assistant Charity Comisioner and Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC 1801, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated the law for appreciation of disclosure of real cause of action as follows :
"10. In Saleem Bhai and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [(2003) 1 SCC 557] it was held with reference to Order VII Rule 11 of the Code 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 before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For 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 the germane: the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage.
11. I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Ors. [(1998) 2 SCC 70] it was held that the basic question to be decided while dealing with an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause of action has been set out in the plaint or something purely illusory has been stated with (Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:3456] (13 of 22) [CR-99/2023] a view to get out of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
12. The trial Court must remember that if on a meaningful and not 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 searchingly under Order X of the Code.
13. It is trite law that not any particular plea has to be considered, and the whole plaint has to be read. As was observed by this Court in Roop Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill [(1982) 3 SCC 487], only a part of the plaint cannot be rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed, the plaint as a whole must be rejected.
14. In Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh Property [(1998) 7 SCC 184] it was observed that the averments in the plaint as a whole have to be seen to find out whether Clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII was applicable.
15. There cannot be any compartmentalization, dissection, segregation and inversions of the language of various paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is adopted it would run counter to the cardinal canon of interpretation according to which a pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import. It is not permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage and to read it out of the context in isolation. Although it is the substance and not merely the form that has to be looked into, the pleading has to be construed as it stands without addition or subtraction or words or change of its apparent grammatical sense. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. At the same time should be borne in mind that no pedantic approach should be (Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:3456] (14 of 22) [CR-99/2023] adopted to defeat Justice on hair-splitting technicalities."
18. Mr. Saransh Vij, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that ground Nos. (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 are available for rejection of the plaint. It is plaintiff's case that the plaintiff company is engaged in purchase and sale of land as well as development of colonies and infrastructure. In the ordinary course of business, the plaintiff company resolved on 23.05.2014 (referred above) to sale the suit property and authorized the Managing Director, who has filed the suit on behalf of the company as well as to one of the petitioner, who was authorized agent of the company, to sell the property. The resolution would make it abundantly clear that the company had not decided to transfer the suit property in any other manner including mortgage. The Managing Director had entered into an agreement to sale the suit property with the petitioners. The agreement paper would reveal that entire consideration money was paid through cheque and in the plaint, the plaintiff has admitted that the cheque amount was transferred to its Bank Account. The agreement further reveals that possession of the suit property was also handed over to the petitioners. Only thing that was left to be done was registration of the sale deed in the name of the petitioners or in the name of any other person as desired by the petitioners. There is no chit of paper even to remotely suggest that the transaction between the parties was in the nature of mortgage to secure repayment of money, rather, the Book of accounts and Income Tax Returns of (Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:3456] (15 of 22) [CR-99/2023] the plaintiff would show that the receipt of consideration money was accepted as sale proceeds of the immovable property.
19. Therefore, evidently by clever drafting, the plaintiff has ventured to make out a case of deal between the parties as mortgage deal and has imaginarily stated that the sale transaction was shown under pressure of the petitioners as it was a long term loan and petitioners were pressurizing for substantial document to ensure security of loan.
20. Mr. O.P. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents contends that meticulous evaluation of the plaint is not permissible at this stage, rather, if the plaint discloses cause of action, on consideration of bundle of facts disclosed in the plaint, the Courts should go with the trial as has been done by the learned trial Judge.
21. Keeping the aforesaid guidelines on fore and on consideration of the plaint and the documents not disputed by the plaintiff, it is crystal clear that the transaction between the parties was a sale transaction. After execution of the agreement to sale and till filing of the suit, no notice was given to the petitioners disclosing the fact that transaction was a mortgage transaction nor any chit of paper is there to even remotely accept the claim of the plaintiff that the transaction between the parties was a mortgage transaction. A perusal of the plaint would show that it was cleverly drafted to abuse the judicial proceeding and imaginarily asserted that the entire documents which depicts a case of sale transaction was executed under pressure of the petitioners as they were (Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:3456] (16 of 22) [CR-99/2023] insisting for security of their long term loan. The resolution of the Board of Directors dated 24.05.2014 above depicts that the authorization to the Managing Director was for sale only of the suit property and not for transfer by any other mode including mortgage. The Books of account and I.T. Returns of the plaintiff discloses a sale transaction. Likewise, in the resolution of the company dated 24.05.2022, it is reiterated that by resolution dated 24.05.2014, the company has decided to sale only the suit property. Evidently, no document is there on the record to substantiate that the transaction between the parties was a mortgage transaction. In the circumstance, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to abuse the process of law with a cooked up and vexatious litigation. Admittedly, these documents were not result of any pressure of the petitioners. Evidently, the plaint does not disclose a real cause of action, rather something purely illusionary has been cleverly drafted in the plaint making out a case for the suit. On a meaningful reading of the plaint, the suit appears manifestly vexatious and does not disclose a right to sue, rather frivolous grounds have been stated in the plaint. Hence, the plaint is fit to be rejected under Clause (a) of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. and accordingly stands rejected.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contends that Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act read with Schedule III of the said Act clearly stipulates that a suit for declaration of Khatedari right is cognizable only by a Revenue Court and not by a Civil Court. Unless the plaintiff would have got a decree for declaration of their Khatedari right, the present suit is barred (Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:3456] (17 of 22) [CR-99/2023] under the law. It is not disputed that the suit property was agricultural land and the plaintiff had paid stamp duty at the time of purchase showing the land as agricultural land. It is also admitted that on the date of institution of the suit, plaintiff was not a recorded Khatedar in the revenue records.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following judgments :
Sr. Parties Citation Delivered By
No.
01 Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (2019) 3 SCC 692 Hon'ble Supreme
(Minor) THR. Natural Guardian Court
(Father) Pradeep Kumar Pilania
and Others
02 Rajasthan State Shriganganagar S.B. Civil First Hon'ble Rajasthan
Sugar Mills Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ajeet Appeal No.1/2023 High Court,
Singh & Ors. Jodhpur
03 Romel Singh Panwar Vs. Smt. S.B. Civil First Hon'ble Rajasthan
Amarjeet Kaur & Ors. Appeal No.12/2024 High Court,
Jodhpur
04 Sunil & Ors. Vs. Ostwal Phoschem S.B. Civil First Hon'ble Rajasthan
(India) Ltd. & Ors. Appeal High Court,
No.215/2023 Jodhpur
05 Rukmani Vs. Bhola & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Hon'ble Rajasthan
Appeal High Court, Jaipur
No.553/1993 Bench
06 Smt. Kamli Devi Vs. Smt. S.B. Civil First Hon'ble Rajasthan
Rampyari & Ors. Appeal High Court, Jaipur
No.280/2022 Bench
07 Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. Gulab S.B. Civil Second Hon'ble Rajasthan
Singh & Ors. Appeal High Court,
No.233/2018 Jodhpur
Since, no contrary view has been taken herein to what is decided in the aforesaid judgments, hence, require no elaborate discussion.
24. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in fact on the alleged date of sale in favour of the petitioners, the plaintiff was recorded as tenant in respect of suit property. Moreover, the petitioners claim to have purchased the suit property from the (Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:3456] (18 of 22) [CR-99/2023] plaintiff, therefore, the petitioners cannot deny the title of the plaintiff. In that situation, the plaintiff was not required to get declaration of Khatedari right for the reason that as soon as the unauthorized sale deed is cancelled, the Khatedari of the plaintiff would automatically revive.
25. Relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act are as follows :
"207. Suits and applications cognizable by revenue court only-
(1) All suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court. (2) No court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application.
Explanation-If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief might be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court is greater than, or additional to, or is not identical with, that which the revenue court have granted."
THE THIRD SCHEDULE
S.No. Section Description of Suit, Period of Time from Proper Court officer
of Act application or limitation which Court Competent to
appeal period Fees dispose of
begins to
run.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART I - SUITS
5. 88 Suit for declaration None None [One Assistant
of the plaintiff's Rupee] Collector
right:-
(i) as a tenant, or
(ii) as a tenant of
khudkasht, or
(iii) as a sub-
tenant, or
(iv) for a share in a
joint tenancy
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (19 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
Section 88 of the Act reads as follows :
"88. Suit for declaration of right-(1) Any person claiming to be a tenant or a co-tenant may sue for a declaration that he is a tenant or for a declaration of his share in such joint tenancy.
(2) A tenant of Khudkasht may sue for a declaration that he is such a tenant.
(3) A sub-tenant may sue the person from whom he holds for a declaration that he is a sub-tenant.
(4) A landholder other than the State Government may sue a person claiming to be a tenant or co-tenant of a holding or a tenant of Khudkasht or a sub-tenant for a declaration of the right of such person."
26. The respondents cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time. Once the plaintiff/respondent came up with a case that the agent of the company, who was earlier authorized to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property, was not authorized to execute the sale deed on the date of execution of the sale deed, as his authority was already revoked, the sale was bad as the company was not a party to the sale transaction. In view of the aforesaid stand, the plaintiff company claims not to be a party to the sale transaction, therefore, for setting aside the impugned sale deed, the third party to the sale-deed i.e. plaintiff- company must have title to the property which could have been asserted only on declaration of their title in respect of the agricultural land by a Competent Revenue Court only and unless the plaintiff, who was not a recorded Khatedar on the date of institution of the suit, gets such declaration by a Revenue Court, the suit before the Civil Court was barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:3456] (20 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
27. The respondents have relied upon following cases :
(i) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited VS. S.P. Velayutham reported in 2022 8 SCC 210; (ii) Liverpool & London S.P. & I. Asson. Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success I and Anr. reported in 2004 9 SCC 512; (iii) Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh reported in 2010 0 AIR (SC) 2807; (iv) Kamala Bai and Ors.
Vs. Mohan Lal and Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.21/2023 (Raj.); (v) Sundar Lal Soni Vs. Durga Shankar and Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.53/2024 (Raj.); (vi) Shri Ram and Ors. Vs. ADJ and Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 1250; (vii) Bismillah Vs. Janeshwar Prasad reported in 1990 0 AIR SC 540; (viii) Narendra Kumar Mittal Vs. Nupur Housing Development reported in 2020 20 SCC 158; (ix) Shyam Kumar Vs. Budh Singh reported in 1977 AIR RAJ 238; (x) Sanganer Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Janki Devi and Ors. reported in 2013 1 DNJ 358; (xi) Ganesh Ram Vs. Lota Ram and Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.45/2021 (Raj.); (xii) Nakki Devi Vs. Rohit Bhatara and Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.36/2016 (Raj.); (xiii) Mani Ram Vs. Mamkori and Ors. reported in 2021 2 DNJ Raj 610; (xiv) Rajendra Kumbhat Vs. Devi and Ors. reported in 2015 (2) RLW 1530 Raj; (xv) Sushil Kumar Vs. M.B. Sangariya and Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.455/2006 (Raj.); (xvi) Harmeet Singh Dhillon Vs. Randeep Dhillon (S.B. CR Petition No.233/2011 (Raj.); (xvii) Amrit Lal and Ors. Vs. Heera Ram reported in 2016 3 DNJ 1151; (xviii) Laxminarayan Vs. Ramswaroop and Ors. reported in 2017 4 WLN 98 RAJ and (xix) Kiran Devi Vs. Nirmala Joshi reported in 2012 3 WLN 115 Raj. (Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:3456] (21 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
28. In view of the conclusions reached above, the discussion of the referred judgments would be academic only as the issues considered therein are not directly involved here at. In Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (supra), the provisions of Section 32 and 33 of the Indian Registration Act was considered and it was held that if the document was not produced for registration by the competent persons referred therein, the registration would be void. Evidently, the petitioners who were claiming under the documents are also competent to produce the same for registration.
29. In Liverpool & London S.P. & I. Asson. Limited's case (supra), it was held that whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or not is to be find out on reading of the plaint as a whole. As has been noticed above, on reading of the plaint as a whole, it appears that an illusionary cause of action was disclosed and not a real cause of action, which a sine quo non for sustenance of the plaint.
30. In Suhrid Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the executant of a deed wants to annul it, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid or non est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him.
31. There is no dispute in proposition of law laid down, however, the law is clear that when a non-executant challenges the deed, he has to plead and prove his title. In the State of Rajasthan, for declaration of title in respect of agricultural land as in the present case, jurisdiction is vested with the Revenue Court. Section 207 of (Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:3456] (22 of 22) [CR-99/2023] the Rajasthan Tenancy Act clearly speaks that in the matter of different declaration in respect of agricultural land, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred.
32. In Pyarelal's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered and held that when the plaintiff was not a recorded Khatedar in respect of the agricultural land on the date of institution of the suit, he has to first get his Khatedari right declared by the Revenue Court and only thereafter suit for cancellation of gift deed was maintainable before the Civil Court. In view of Pyarelal's judgment (supra), some of the cases decided by the High Court and relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents (supra) are not binding on this Court.
33. Since, this Court has already found that the plaint discloses no real cause of action, as such, the plaint was fit to be rejected. Hence, there is no reason to allow liberty to the plaintiff to go before the Revenue Court for declaration of Khatedari right. Consequently, the impugned order stands hereby set aside and the plaint stands rejected.
34. Accordingly, the instant civil revision stands allowed.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J deep/-
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)