Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahendra Singh vs . Smt. Murti Devi & Others on 5 January, 2015
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH ORDER Mahendra Singh Vs. Smt. Murti Devi & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13468/2014) Date of Order: January 5th, 2015. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. Deepak Sharma, for the petitioners. Mr. Himmat Singh Bikarwar, for the respondent No.1. BY THE COURT:
This petition has been filed against the order dated 15-10-2014 passed by the Board of Revenue (hereinafter `the Board') dismissing petitioners' revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter `the 1955 Act') against the order dated 15-10-2013 passed by the Assistant Collector Kumher District Bharatpur whereby the petitioners' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.
The facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter `the plaintiffs') filed a suit under Sections 88, 89 and 188 of the 1955 Act with regard to suit property mentioned in para No.2 of the plaint stating it to be ancestral property and seeking a declaration that 7/8th part thereof fell to their share. It was alleged that the defendant No.1now the petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 (and now the co-petitioner) on 27-8-2012 in respect of land not in the individual ownership of the defendant No.1, and therefore the sale deed was null and void and so was liable to be declared void ab initio against the plaintiffs. It was stated that the plaintiffs had come into khatedari rights over 7/8th share of the suit land by way of devolution and yet the defendant No.1 had unauthorisedly and unlawfully executed sale deed dated 27-8-2012 which was registered on 4-10-2012. A declaration in the circumstances was sought from the revenue court that the plaintiffs were khatedars of 7/8th share of the suit land and were entitled to be put in possession thereof.
On service of summons the defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. It was stated that as the prayer in the suit was with regard to cancellation of the sale deed dated 27-8-2012 as registered on 4-10-2012 the Civil Court alone had jurisdiction and the Assistant Collector Kumher, where the suit was laid under Sections 88, 89 and 188 of the 1955 Act, had no jurisdiction. It was stated that consequently under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC the suit was barred by law and the plaint liable to be returned to the plaintiffs for taking their purported remedy before the competent civil court.
The Assistant Collector Kumher after hearing both the parties dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC vide order dated 15-10-2013. A revision petition thereagainst under Section 230 of the 1955 Act before the Board also met a similar fate and was dismissed on 15-10-2014. Both the courts below have held that in its pith and substance the plaint pertained to declaration of khatedari rights of the plaintiffs to the extent of 7/8th share in the suit land as the purported sale deed executed in regard thereto by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was stated to be void ab initio. It was held that the relief in the suit was within Section 207 of the 1955 Act and was to be exclusively tried by the Revenue Courts, which alone had jurisdiction to address issues of declaration and possession qua agricultural land under Sections 88, 89 and 188 of the 1955 Act. The Assistant Collector Kumher held that the relief sought by the plaintiffs in their suit could be granted without setting aside or cancelling the sale deed dated 27-8-2012 executed in favour of defendant No.2 by the defendant No.1 on 27-8-2012 and subsequently registered on 4-10-2012. The Board has concurred with the conclusion of the Assistant Collector Kumher. Hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel for the petitioners impugning the judgment dated 15-10-2013 passed by the Assistant Collector Kumher as affirmed by the Board vide judgment dated 15-10-2014 has submitted that the courts below failed to appreciate that the prayer in the suit filed was for cancellation of the sale deed dated 27-8-2012 registered on 4-10-2012. It was submitted that in the circumstances provisions of Section 207 of the 1995 Act were not attracted to the dispute laid before the Assistant Collector Kumher but the courts below have wrongly held so. The relief for cancellation of the sale deed dated 27-8-2012 registered on 4-10-2012 could have been granted only by the Civil Court. It has been submitted that the courts below also failed to consider the fact that without the registered sale deed dated 27-8-2012 being declared null and void no relief qua the purported khatedari as claimed in the suit for declaration and possession filed by the plaintiffs could have been granted. A reference to Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act has been made to contend that where a sale deed in respect of agricultural land had been executed and is alleged to be voidable, cancellation thereof in appropriate proceedings could only be granted by the Civil Court alone and not by revenue courts.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the impugned judgment dated 15-10-2013 passed by the Assistant Collector Kumher, the judgment of the Board passed on 15-10-2014 and also the plaint filed by the respondents-plaintiffs.
The issue agitated in the present petition is no longer res integra and stands fully covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this court in the case of Jaswant Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan [ILR 1984 (34) Raj. 416]. Therein it has been held that in determining the question as to whether the suit for declaration and possession in a given case was triable by revenue court or a civil court it is the substance of the plaint, its pith and substance and not its form which is to be considered by the court. Taking into consideration Section 207 of the 1955 Act as also the schedule III of the 1955 Act, it has been held by the Division Bench that declaration of tenancy rights over agricultural land is exclusively in the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts and even where more than one relief is sought by the plaintiffs, it is the duty of the court to determine the real substance of the plaint, the main relief prayed for in the suit for coming to a conclusion on the question of its jurisdiction when raised. It is also well settled that where in a suit for declaration of khatedari rights and possession qua agricultural land, even if cancellation of a sale deed is incidentally prayed for on the ground of it being ab initio void, the relief of cancellation of sale deed would be superfluous, merely incidental and peripheral to the main relief of declaration of plaintiffs' khatedari rights over the agricultural land. In such situations only the Revenue Court would have jurisdiction to try the suit laid.
In the case of Ratan Lal Vs. Gram Panchayat Agolai [1977 RLW 143] this court has held that not only the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit has to be looked into but all allegations in the plaint have to be considered by the court while deciding which courtcivil or revenue has jurisdiction and the trial court is under a duty to look at the substance of the plaint and find out the true nature and object of the suit. Where the true nature and object of the suit relates to declaration and possession of khatedari rights, the revenue court alone has jurisdiction to address such a question as it is beyond dispute that in terms of Section 207 of the 1955 Act the revenue court alone has jurisdiction with regard to declaration of khatedari rights and of claims to possession of agricultural land consequent thereto. It has been categorically stated that court must be guided by the substance of the plaint and not merely by its form.
In the context of the law stated, in the instant case, the relief sought by the plaintiffs in their suit related to the declaration of their khatedari rights in agricultural land and possession thereof de hors the registered sale deed dated 27-8-2012 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 which was alleged to be ab initio void for reason of lack of the defendant's authority to sell in his individual capacity ancestral land in which the plaintiffs claimed right by survivourship/ devolution. The relief could only be granted by the revenue courts, and the jurisdiction of the civil court stood ousted under Section 207 of the 1955 Act read with Schedule III thereof. That in the process the revenue court may incidentally determine an ancillary or peripheral issue while determining the substance of the plaint pertaining to khatedari rights of the plaintiffs over agricultural land would be of no event. To my mind, the courts below have rightly held that the substance of the plaint and main relief sought by the plaintiffs related to declaration of their khatedari rights and possession of agricultural land which according to them had been unlawfully transferred under the registered sale deed dated 27-8-2012 rendering it ab initio void. Quite clearly the plaintiffs' case was that the registered sale deed dated 27-8-2012 was void ab initio and not that it was voidable. The plaintiffs' primary object in their suit was to obtain a declaration of khatedari rights and possession of agricultural land. The relief sought could be granted if the evidence so justified, without even setting aside/ cancelling the registered sale deed dated 27-8-2012. Consequently the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioner-defendant before the Assistant Collector Kumher was misdirected, without merit and was rightly dismissed. The Board rightly affirmed the order. There is no occasion for this court to interfere with the well considered judgment dated 15-10-2013 passed by the Assistant Collector Kumher as upheld by the Board vide judgment dated 15-10-2014. The petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly dismissed.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/ All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.