Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Parvat Singh vs Norin (2025:Rj-Jd:47295) on 3 November, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:47295]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 53/2025
Parvat Singh S/o Shri Sawai Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Patodi, Tehsil Bisau, Dist. Churu, At Present R/o Shekhawat
Hospital, Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Suratgarh, Tehsil Suratgarh,
Dist. Sriganganagar,raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Norin W/o Rohit Kundu, D/o Shri Pramod Kumar R/o 11,
Ftp (Paniwala) At Present R/o 18 Mainview Bvd,
Truganina, Vic 3029, Australia Through Power Of Attoreny
Holder Suman W/o Shri Pramod Kumar R/o Pirkamdiya,
Tehsil Tibbi, Dist. Hanumangarh,raj.
2. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Khashiram, R/o Pirkamdiya, Tehsil
Mansarover, Jaipur Tehsil And Dist. Jaipur,raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Falgun Buch
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order 03/11/2025
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner - defendant against the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Civil Original Case No.22/2024 (CIS No.84/2024), whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted that the respondent-plaintiff instituted a civil suit, inter alia, seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 20.07.2017, along with a decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:44:57 PM) (Downloaded on 05/11/2025 at 09:52:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47295] (2 of 5) [CR-53/2025] selling, mortgaging, transferring, or otherwise alienating the agricultural land comprised in 11 FTP Account No.6/21 PN 188/255 (33), Kila Nos. 5/1, 5/2, 6/1, 6/2, 7, 14, 15/1, 15/2 and PN 189/255 (34), Kila Nos.1, 2/1, 2/2, 9, 10, measuring in total 3.795 hectares, during the pendency of the suit, and further prayed for protection of her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land.
3. It was contended that during the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the land in question, being agricultural in nature, falls under Schedule III of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and hence, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 207 of the said Act. Learned counsel submitted that the trial Court, while rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, failed to consider that a revenue suit with regard to the land in question is already pending between the parties before the competent revenue Court.
4. It was further contended that the respondent-plaintiff is claiming the suit property as ancestral land and asserting her share therein. Accordingly, unless and until her khatedari rights are determined by the competent revenue Court, she has no locus standi to maintain a suit for cancellation of the gift deed and sale deed dated 20.07.2017. Only after such determination or declaration of khatedari rights, could she seek cancellation of the said documents by which her alleged share has been transferred.
5. It was further submitted that the learned trial Court erred in holding that the suit is maintainable before the Civil Court, as (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:44:57 PM) (Downloaded on 05/11/2025 at 09:52:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47295] (3 of 5) [CR-53/2025] without the prior declaration of khatedari rights in her favour by the revenue Court, the respondent-plaintiff cannot seek either cancellation of the gift deed and sale deed dated 20.07.2017 or the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the agricultural land. In essence, until the declaration of khatedari rights, the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the present suit.
6. Reliance was placed upon the following judgments:
• Shyam Sunder & Ors. v. Smt. Kushalkanwar & Ors., S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.87/2022; • Laxmi Devi & Ors. v. Smt. Kushalkanwar & Ors., S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.112/2022; • Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.1269-1270 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.21402- 21403 of 2015), decided on 29.01.2019.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff supported the impugned order dated 09.12.2024 and submitted that the relief of cancellation of the gift deed and sale deed dated 20.07.2017 squarely falls within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court. The other reliefs sought are merely ancillary in nature; therefore, the learned trial Court rightly held that the suit is maintainable, and the impugned order calls for no interference by this Court.
8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff relied upon the following decisions:
• Kailash Chandra Goyal v. Ramesh Chandra Goyal & Ors., S.B. Civil First Appeal No.198/2022, decided on 11.01.2023;
• Smt. Bhagwati Kunwar & Ors. v. Gulab Singh & Ors., (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:44:57 PM) (Downloaded on 05/11/2025 at 09:52:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47295] (4 of 5) [CR-53/2025] Civil Revision Petitions No.267/2008 and 266/2008, decided on 02.08.2019;
• Pratapi (Smt.) v. Jhamku, Civil Revision Petition No.28/2012, decided on 02.04.2013.
9. Heard.
10. It is not in dispute before this Court that the respondent- plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of the gift deed and sale deed dated 20.07.2017. It is also undisputed that the revenue Court is not competent to grant the relief of cancellation of such documents. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try such a suit is not barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. It is well-settled that the Civil Court possesses inherent jurisdiction unless such jurisdiction is expressly or by necessary implication excluded.
11. A bare perusal of the plaint makes it evident that the respondent-plaintiff's primary relief is the cancellation of the gift deed and sale deed dated 20.07.2017. The prayer made in the plaint against the petitioner - defendant not to interfere with petitioner's peaceful possession over the disputed land is not independent but merely an ancillary issue to the main relief on account of the suit being filed by the respondent - plaintiff against the petitioner - defendant for cancellation of the said deed. Hence, the suit cannot be held to be barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and the learned trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The argument that the respondent - plaintiff had filed the suit for cancellation of the gift and sale deed without first determination of khatedari rights by the revenue (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:44:57 PM) (Downloaded on 05/11/2025 at 09:52:51 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:47295] (5 of 5) [CR-53/2025] Courts has no substance as the khatedari rights or the tenancy rights granted to tenants over the rights allowing them to cultivate and hold the land are totally independent and have nothing to do with the dispute with regard to land being gifted or sold without any authority of law.
12. In the opinion of this Court, the plaint submitted by the respondent - plaintiff discloses a cause of action and, therefore, could not have been rejected on an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
13. In the result, the revision petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 16-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:44:57 PM) (Downloaded on 05/11/2025 at 09:52:51 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)