Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Farooq Shah vs Mangi Lal & Ors on 18 July, 2016
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:JUDGMENT:
S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 1616/2016
Farooq Shah
vs.
Mangilal & ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 18/7/2016
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Mr. Ramesh Purohit, for the appellant.
BY THE COURT:
This appeal is directed against the order dated 28/4/2016 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Bhilwara, whereby, the application filed by the respondents under Order VII Rule 11 CPC though has been rejected, the trial court has directed return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
The appellant filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed, declaration of the same as null & void, for possession and declaration as Khatedar qua the land comprised in old Khata No. 226 (New Khata No.773) Khasra No.4063 ad measuring 25.19 Bigha. The appellant prayed for the following reliefs:-
"अत: प रन ह क व द व द सव र फरम य ज र इस आशय सर ई अमर आदश तम एव घ!षण तम ननषध ज न'क प ररत फरम ई ज व क :-
1. क पनतव द सखय 1 द र पनतव द सखय 2 ह म- ननषप कदत नवकय नवलख कदन क त 21/01/2013 ननरसत रन घ!षण जत ह व वद ! ख तद र घ!नषत क य ज त ह और पनतव द सखय 03 पनतव द सखय 2 स व द ! बज कदल व।
2. क पनतव द सखय 3 र जसव अन4लख, र जसव र ' जम बद म-
पनतव द सखय 2 न म हट य ज र व द न म इन8 ज र-
पनतव द सखय 1 द र व द ह म- ननषप कदत नवकय नवलख पज 9 त
कदन क त 30/10/2006 पनतव द सखय 01 व पनतव द सखय 03
उस प लन र- ।
2/4
3. क व द खर व ल महनत न व द ! पनतव द सखय 1 स कदल य
ज व।
4. क अनय !ई अन<त!ष म नन य नय य लय उनरत समझ व द !
कदल य ज व।"
The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC inter alia indicating that qua the said land, already a suit was filed by the plaintiff which is pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Kotri, being case No.33/2013, and wherein an application for temporary injunction was also filed, and in the said suit declaration of Khatedari rights has been sought and till such time such a declaration is given by the Revenue Court, the present suit was not maintainable and, therefore, the same deserves to be rejected.
The appellant filed a reply to the said application and submitted that the subject matter of the suit before the Sub Divisional Officer was different and the present suit for cancellation of sale deed is maintainable before the Civil Court.
After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the main relief prayed by the plaintiff was declaration of Khatedari rights and correction of entries in the revenue record and the suit seeking similar relief was pending before the Revenue Court, therefore, the present suit was barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and consequently, passed the order as noticed hereinbefore.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court committed an error in ordering for return of the plaint inasmuch as the relief claimed in the plaint pertains to cancellation of sale deed, which relief could only be granted by the Civil Court. It was submitted that the pendency of the suit 3/4 before the Revenue Court cannot be a reason for dismissal of the present suit and on that count alone the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record.
The appellant was directed to produce the copies of the plaint in both the suits. In the present suit, as quoted hereinbefore, the appellant has claimed Khatedari rights and also sought correction of revenue entries. In the suit filed before the Revenue Court, the following reliefs were sought:-
"अत: प रन ह क व द व द सव र फरम य ज र व द पक म-
नवरद पनतव द गण सखय -1 स 2 एव 19 नवरद इस आशय
घ!षण तम न'क स कदर फरम ई ज व क :-
- क व दपत ररण सखय -1 म- वरणत 9 नष आर ज नजस ख त
नमबर 773 प<र न 726 खसर नमबर 4063 कतफल 25 ब घ 19 नबसव 3/16 व- नहसस वद ! ख तद र शत र घ!नषत क य ज र तदन<स र र जसव र F' म- द<रसत फरम ई ज व।
ख- क व द पक म- पनतव द सखय -1 व 2 व 19 नवरद इस आशय
न'क स कदर फरम ई ज व क व द व दपत ररण सखय -1 म-
वरणत आर ज नजस पर व द नबज ह उस ह -नहसस म- क स प र
!ई र वट य ब ध उतपन नहH र-, श त पIव उस बज शत
रन दव-। र जसव अन4लख म- क स प र !ई दखलनद ज न सवय
र- व न क स अनय स र व- न व द ! बदखल र- न क स अनय स
र व-, इस आशय सर ई ननषध ज न'क व द पक म- ज र
र व-।
ग- क हज -खर , व ल महनत न व द ! पनतव द सखय -1 व 2 !
व द स कदल य ज व।
घ- क अनय !ई अन<त!ष ज! म नन य नय य लय उनरत समझ व द ! पनतव द गण स कदल य ज व।"
A bare look at the reliefs sought before the Revenue Court would also indicate that the appellant has sought declaration of rights as Khatedar and correction in the revenue record.
This Court in Rukmani vs. Bhola & ors. : 2012 (2) WLC 797 has held that once the declaration as sought is granted by the Revenue Court regarding the Khatedari rights of the plaintiff, there is no requirement to seek cancellation of sale deed as the 4/4 sale deed would be rendered void and, therefore, such a suit is triable before the Revenue Court only. As noticed hereinbefore the relief claimed in the suit before the Civil Court and the Revenue Court is almost identical i.e. declaration of Khatedari rights and correction of revenue entries and, therefore, once the relief of declaration regarding Khatedari rights and correction in revenue record is granted, the sale deed would be rendered void and, therefore, the plaint was rightly ordered to be returned by the trial court under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.
The order impugned does not call for any interference, there is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI), J.
item no.48 baweja/-