Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt. Kamli Devi W/O Shri Hanuman Sharma ... vs Smt. Rampyari W/O Late Shri Puranmal on 3 August, 2022
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No.280/2022
Smt. Kamli Devi W/o Shri Hanuman Sharma D/o Late Shri
Puranmal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Kanthawala, Tehsil Chaksu,
District Jaipur.
----Plaintiff/Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Rampyari W/o Late Shri Puranmal, R/o Rampurabas,
Goner, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur.
2. Smt. Raja Devi W/o Shri Gyarsi Lal D/o Late Shri
Puranmal, R/o Rampurabas, Goner, Tehsil Chaksu, District
Jaipur At Present- Aashwala, Tehsil Sanganer, District
Jaipur.
3. Smt. Mangi Devi W/o Shri Ramprasad D/o Late Shri
Puranmal, R/o Rampurabas, Goner, Tehsil Chaksu, District
Jaipur At Present Kanthawala, Tehsil Chaksu, District
Jaipur.
4. Smt. Kali Devi W/o Mohan Lal D/o Late Shri Puranmal,
R/o Rampurabas, Goner, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur, At
Present Aashawala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
5. Smt. Madhu Devi @ Magga Devi W/o Shri Shankar Lal
D/o Late Shri Puranmal, R/o Rampurabas, Goner, Tehsil
Chaksu, District Jaipur. At Present Bhavgarh Bandha,
Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
6. Smt. Chota Devi W/o Shri Mukesh D/o Late Shri
Puranmal, R/o Rampurabas, Goner, Tehsil Chaksu, District
Jaipur. At Present Bhavgarh Bandha, Tehsil Sanganer,
District Jaipur.
7. Smt. Lali Devi W/o Shri Kaluram D/o Late Shri Puranmal,
R/o Rampurabas, Goner, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur. At
Present Aashawala, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
8. Mahesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Vijay Narayan Sharma,
R/o Goner, Tehsil Sanagner, District Jaipur.
9. Sharwan Lal Yadav S/o Shri Ramnath Yadav, R/o 34/501,
Sector-3 Pratap Nagar, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.
10. Rakesh Agarwal, S/o Shri Girdhari Lal
11. Vikas Agarwal S/o Shri Girdhari Lal, R/o 58, Dayanand
Colony, Opposite Glass Factory, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 05/08/2022 at 10:06:38 PM)
(2 of 9) [CFA-280/2022]
----Defendant-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Mitrucka
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
REPORTABLE
03/08/2022
1. By way of this first appeal, appellant-plaintiff has assailed the order dated 16.05.2022 passed by Additional District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (HQ Sanganer) in Civil Suit No.64/2022 whereby and whereunder her civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction in relation to claim of 1/8th share/khatedari rights in the agricultural lands in question to challenge the disputed agreement and sale deeds, has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
2. Learned trial court, in the order impugned dated 16.05.2022, has categorically observed that plaintiff has instituted the present civil suit claiming her 1/8th share in the agricultural lands of Khasra Nos.202, 204 to 209 total ad measuring 2.41 hectare situated at Village Rampurabas, Goner, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur and has challenged the agreement dated 13.11.2013, sale deed dated 03.02.2014 executed by her father and the subsequent sale deed dated 28.03.2022 to be declared as null and void to the extent of her 1/8th share. The khatedari rights of plaintiff for her 1/8th share in the aforesaid lands have not been declared by the revenue court and the plaintiff has not instituted any revenue suit for declaration and partition of her 1/8th share in the aforesaid agricultural lands. The trial court has placed reliance (Downloaded on 05/08/2022 at 10:06:38 PM) (3 of 9) [CFA-280/2022] upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in case of Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (minor) & Ors. reported in [(2019) 3 SCC 692] and two other judgments of Rajasthan High Court passed in case of Bagaram & Ors. vs. Balkishan @ Balramkishan & Anr. reported in [2019 (2) WLC (Raj.) UC 551] and Rukmani vs. Bhola & Ors. reported in [2012 (2) WLC (Raj.) 797].
3. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the impugned order and the plaint as well as the record of trial court.
4. By perusal of the plaint, more particularly para No.6, it is clear that plaintiff claimed her 1/8th share on the basis of a compromise order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Chaksu, District Jaipur. In this revenue suit, admittedly plaintiff is not party and her four sisters instituted this revenue suit against their father-Puranmal wherein Puranmal gave consent that in his agricultural land, each plaintiff i.e. his daughters has 1/8th undivided khatedari rights of each. On the basis of consent given by father Puranmal, the revenue suit was decreed and order dated 23.02.2015 was passed. It may be noticed that prior to passing of the consent order dated 23.02.2015, father-Puranmal had already entered into an agreement dated 13.11.2013 to sell the lands of Khasra Nos.202, 204 to 209 measuring 2.41 hectare in favour of one Mahesh Kumar Sharma (respondent No.8 herein) and thereafter, through receipt dated 18.11.2015 he received entire sale consideration of Rs.95,80,000/- and executed a registered sale deed dated 03.02.2014 in favour of one Shri Sharwan Lal Yadav and transferred his khatedari rights and possession in favour of purchaser Sharwan Lal Yadav (respondent No.9 herein). (Downloaded on 05/08/2022 at 10:06:38 PM)
(4 of 9) [CFA-280/2022]
5. It may be noticed that at that point of time, lands in question were recorded in the revenue record only in the sole name of father-Puranmal and on the basis of revenue record, he sold these lands alleging him as the sole khatedar, owner, possessor of these lands. It may be noticed that after transferring his khatedari rights, ownership and possession of aforesaid agricultural lands, at least through registered sale deed dated 03.02.2014, father- Puranmal could not have given consent in favour of his daughters in the revenue suit that his daughters have 1/8th undivided share/khatedari rights in the agricultural lands and therefore, on the face value, the consent order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer may not be treated as a judicial declaration by the revenue authorities regarding 1/8th khatedari rights/shares of daughters of Puranmal at least as far as for lands already sold by Puranmal through registered sale deed. It is also undisputed fact on record that thereafter respondent No.9- Sharwan Lal Yadav has sold these lands to respondent Nos.10 and 11 through subsequent sale deed dated 28.03.2022 and now the present appellant-plaintiff has instituted the civil suit challenging the agreement dated 13.11.2013 as well as registered sale deed dated 03.02.2014 executed by her father and the subsequent sale deed dated 28.03.2022 executed by purchaser under the sale deed dated 03.02.2014.
6. From the plaint, it is also undisputed fact that the consent order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer and on the basis of which plaintiff is placing reliance to claim her 1/8th khatedari rights in lands in question, has subsequently been reviewed and amended by the court of SDO vide order dated 02.11.2015 in the same proceedings. The order (Downloaded on 05/08/2022 at 10:06:38 PM) (5 of 9) [CFA-280/2022] dated 02.11.2015 was passed on application of subsequent purchasers of lands in question i.e. Khasra Nos.202, 204 to 209 measuring 2.41 hectare and it has been clarified that the consent order dated 23.02.2015 will not operate in relation to these lands which had already been sold by father-Puranmal prior to that order vide registered sale deed dated 03.02.2014 in favour of respondent No.9-Sharwan Lal Yadav, who later on has further sold these lands to the subsequent purchasers respondent Nos.10 &
11.
7. As per the plaint, amendment order dated 02.11.2015, though has been alleged to be collusive but has not been challenged by appellant-plaintiff neither before the revenue authority nor before the civil court. Thus, it stands clear that the very basis of plaintiff to claim her 1/8th share/khatedari rights in the lands in question on the basis of a consent order and decree dated 23.02.2015 goes away after amending this consent order by the subsequent order dated 02.11.2015 passed by the court of learned SDO, Chaksu. However, if plaintiff claims her 1/8th khatedari rights in the aforesaid lands in question claiming that lands were ancestral agricultural lands of her father-Puranmal, she could have/ should have instituted her independent and separate revenue suit for claiming such share and khatedari rights and if her share and khatedari rights in these lands to the extent of 1/8th share are declared by the revenue court, thereafter only, she could assail the registered sale deed made by her father seeking declaration to the same as null and void qua her 1/8th share. It is not the case of appellant-plaintiff that on the basis of any revenue record, she is claiming the lands in question as ancestral agricultural lands of her father but she has instituted (Downloaded on 05/08/2022 at 10:06:38 PM) (6 of 9) [CFA-280/2022] present civil suit claiming her 1/8th khatedari rights only on the basis of consent order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, discussed hereinabove and wherein she is not party at all, moreso the same has been amended subsequently vide order dated 02.11.2015.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pyarelal (supra) has categorically held in para Nos.23, 25, 26 as under:-
"23. A claimant whose khatedari rights have been decreed by a revenue court is however on a different footing from a claimant whose khatedari rights are pending adjudication by a revenue court. Where the khatedari rights are yet to be decreed, a claimant must first approach the revenue court. The relief to declare the gift deed void and to restrain respondents Nos. 1 to 5 from interfering with or alienating the property vesting in a civil court may be sought for in a suit by a claimant in whom khatedari rights have been decreed by a revenue court.
25. The question before this court was whether a recorded tenure-holder having prima facie title in his favour and in possession was required to file a suit in the revenue court, or where the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit seeking relief of cancellation of a void document. Upholding the jurisdiction of civil court to try the suit, a two judge Bench of this Court differentiated between a recorded tenure holder, and an unrecorded tenure holder with the following observations:
"7. ...we are of the opinion that where a recorded tenure holder having a prima facie title and in possession files suit in the civil court for cancellation of sale deed having obtained on the ground of fraud or impersonation cannot be directed to file a suit for declaration in the revenue court - reason being that in such a case, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under cloud. He does not require declaration of his title to the land. The position (Downloaded on 05/08/2022 at 10:06:38 PM) (7 of 9) [CFA-280/2022] would be different where a person not being a recorded tenure holder seeks cancellation of sale deed by filing a suit in the civil court on the ground of fraud or impersonation. There necessarily the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of his title and, therefore, he may be directed to approach the revenue court, as the sale deed being void has to be ignored for giving him relief for declaration and possession."
26. Though the above principles emerge in the context of the bar under Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the logic of the judgment extends to the bar under Section 207 read with Section 256 of the of the Tenancy Act. A recorded khatedar stands on a different footing compared to a claimant seeking a decree of their khatedari rights. A claimant seeking a decree of khatedari rights is barred from filing a suit in the civil court prior to their khatedari right being decreed by a revenue court when the relief sought for by the civil court includes a determination of khatedari rights."
9. The trial court has categorically observed in its order dated 16.05.2022 that plaintiff has not instituted any independent proceedings before the revenue court for declaration of her 1/8th share/khatedari rights in the aforesaid lands in question for which she has assailed the registered sale deeds to the extent of her 1/8th share. Learned counsel for appellant also admits before this Court that no such independent and separate revenue proceedings by appellant-plaintiff have been instituted before the revenue court and her claim for 1/8th share in the aforesaid lands in question is solely based on judgment and consent decree dated 23.02.2015. For the discussion made hereinabove, judgment and decree dated 23.02.2015 does not render any help to plaintiff for claiming her 1/8th share/khatedari rights in lands in question. (Downloaded on 05/08/2022 at 10:06:38 PM)
(8 of 9) [CFA-280/2022]
10. It is trite law that while considering the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the averment of plaint and documents referred in the plaint and produced along with plaint are to be considered. Any defence put forth by defendants is wholly relevant at this stage. Further, it is no more integra that pleadings of plaint should be considered as a whole. If, on a meaningful reading of the plaint, not by a cursory reading, the plaint does not disclose a cause of action and clear right to sue to plaintiff or otherwise appears to be barred by law, the same can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In the present case at hand, on perusal of pleadings of plaint as a whole and considering documents and judgments of revenue court challenged and referred in the plaint, the clear position emerges is that unless and until plaintiff does not get declared her 1/8th khatedari rights/share in the aforesaid lands in question before the revenue court, she has no cause of action/right to challenge the sale deeds executed by her father and the subsequent sale deeds before the civil court. She has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of civil court to get indirectly declare her 1/8th khatedari rights to the extent of 1/8th share in the agricultural lands of sale deeds in question, for which exclusive jurisdiction is vested to the revenue court by virtue of Section 207 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. If appellant-plaintiff approached to the revenue court seeking declaration of her 1/8th share/kahtedari rights in the land in question under disputed sale deeds executed by her father and her revenue suit is decreed in her favour as a natural corollary and in consequence sale deeds in question may be declared as null and void to the extent of 1/8th share/khatedari rights of appellant.
(Downloaded on 05/08/2022 at 10:06:38 PM)
(9 of 9) [CFA-280/2022]
11. In such view of the matter, this Court is of considered opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality and perversity in rejecting the civil suit filed by appellant-plaintiff under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is hereby dismissed.
12. Record be sent back.
13. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J SAURABH/118 (Downloaded on 05/08/2022 at 10:06:38 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)