Rajasthan State Shriganganagar Sugar ... vs Ajeet Singh (2023/Rjjd/003615) on 29 March, 2023

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rajasthan State Shriganganagar Sugar ... vs Ajeet Singh (2023/Rjjd/003615) on 29 March, 2023

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metro in Civil Original Case No.139/2022, whereby the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 11:08:39 PM) [2023/RJJD/003615] (2 of 12) [CFA-1/2023] application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as preferred by defendant No.2-Ranveer Singh @ Ranveer Kumar has been allowed as a consequence of which the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

2. Learned senior counsel Mr. Anand Purohit appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Court below has seriously erred in allowing the application as preferred by the defendant in so far as the Court has relied upon the defence as raised by the defendants and also the documents placed on record by them which could not have been considered while disposing of the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. Learned Senior counsel submitted that for adjudication of an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, the averments as made by the plaintiffs in the plaint can only be considered and nothing more than that. A bare perusal of the plaint makes it clear that the plaintiffs had a valid cause of action qua which the present suit had been preferred and the pleadings as made by the plaintiffs cannot be concluded to be bereft of any cause of action or held to be barred by any law. Therefore, none of the grounds as available under Order VII Rule 11, CPC for rejection of the plaint was made out in the present matter and the order impugned being wholly illegal and contrary to the provisions of law deserves to be set aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a bare reading of the plaint as preferred by the plaintiffs makes it clear that firstly, no cause of action arose to the present plaintiffs; secondly, the suit was specifically barred by law that is, the law of limitation; thirdly, the suit in question pertained to an (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 11:08:39 PM) [2023/RJJD/003615] (3 of 12) [CFA-1/2023] agricultural land and unless and until the plaintiffs got a declaration in their favour qua the said agricultural land from a Revenue Court, the present civil suit could not have been maintainable and fourthly, qua the relief as prayed for in the present suit, the revenue proceedings had already been taken up by the plaintiffs way back in the year 1982 and the present suit for the same reliefs cannot be held to be maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that admittedly, the land in question was an agricultural land qua which a suit before the Revenue Court had already been preferred by the plaintiffs and the same is pending consideration till date. He further submitted that the said suit was originally for possession but in the year 2021, an amendment has been sought and the relief of declaration as well as injunction has also been permitted to be added in the plaint. Therefore, unless and until the said suit is decided and it is declared by the Revenue Court that the plaintiff is entitled to the land in question, the present suit for cancellation of the sale-deed cannot be held to be maintainable. Learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:

1. Vijay Singh & Anr. vs. Buddha & Ors.; 2012(2) DNJ (Raj.) 573

2. Rukmani vs. Bhola & Ors.; 2012(4) RLW 3050 (Raj)

3. Pyarelal vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) thr. Natural Guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania & Ors.;

2019 3 SCC 692.

4. Bagaram & Ors. vs. Balkishan alias Balramkishan & Anr.; S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2117/2019 (decided on 16.05.2019)(Raj) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 11:08:39 PM) [2023/RJJD/003615] (4 of 12) [CFA-1/2023]

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. For adjudication of the present matter, a brief detail of the facts is essential.

As averred in the plaint, the land in dispute is an agricultural land comprising of three and a half bighas of khasra No.1217 of Gram Mandore. In the year 1943, a licence for manufacturing of liquor was granted to the contractor namely B.K. Illava by the State. For the said purposes, the land in question was required to be acquired and the proceedings for acquisition were taken up by the State Government but the award amount qua the acquisition/compensation was paid by the contractor B.K. Illava only and not by the State Government. Therefore, a bapi patta was issued in favour of the contractor B.K. Illava in the same year. Admittedly, some portion of the said land was subsequently sublet by the contractor B.K. Illava to one Pratap, who continued to cultivate the land. After introduction of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the year 1955, revenue entries were made in favour of Pratap, he being in possession and cultivator of the land in question at the relevant point of time. The land was mutated in favour of Pratap and subsequently, after his death, in the name of his legal representatives.

7. In the year 1982, a suit for possession was filed by the Rajasthan State Sriganganagar Sugar Mills i.e. the present plaintiff against Pratap Ram on the premise that the land was illegally sublet to him by the contractor B.K. Illava and the revenue entries were wrongly made by the revenue authorities in his favour. In the said suit, an application for temporary injunction was also (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 11:08:39 PM) [2023/RJJD/003615] (5 of 12) [CFA-1/2023] preferred which was rejected. The appeal against the said order was rejected by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the second appeal was also rejected by the Board of Revenue. The original suit filed in the year 1982 for possession has been stated to be pending till date.

8. Meanwhile, a registered sale-deed dated 11.07.2022 was executed in favour of the present defendant No.3-Ramesh Kumar Suthar by defendant Nos.1 & 2 being legal representatives (grandsons) of Pratap. In the above facts, the present suit in question for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 11.07.2022 has been preferred by the plaintiff-Rajasthan State Sriganganagar Sugar Mills.

9. In the suit, an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was preferred by defendant no.2 which has been allowed by the learned court below vide the order impugned. The application has been allowed with the specific finding that the suit as preferred by the plaintiffs is barred by law and consequently, the suit has been dismissed. Against the said impugned order dated 17.11.2022, the present appeal has been preferred.

10. The first question which arise is whether the learned Court below was right in taking into consideration the earlier orders/judgments of the revenue court passed in the matters pertaining to the same parties?

11. A perusal of the order impugned shows that the learned Court below has relied upon the orders/judgments passed by the revenue court qua which a specific objection was raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Relying upon the orders/judgments in the cases of Laxmi Housing Udhyog Pvt. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 11:08:39 PM)

[2023/RJJD/003615] (6 of 12) [CFA-1/2023] Ltd. V. Sharad Subramayan & Ors.; 2016 (2) CCC 188 (Cal) and Dr. Bharat Pandurang Dhokane V. Yeshwent Rao Kankarrao Gadakh and Anr.; 1999 (4) ALLMR 632, the learned Court below reached to a conclusion that the said judgments were not the private documents and were public in nature and definitely fall in the category of 'Public Documents' and therefore, could be considered for decision of an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.

12. Coming to the ground raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants that for decision of an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC only the pleadings as made by the plaintiff in plaint can be considered, it is essential to analyse whether the findings as arrived by the learned Court below are based on the averments as made by the plaintiff in the plaint or not. So far as the fact regarding the acquisition of the land and the payment of the compensation amount being made by the contractor Khan Bahadur B.K. Illava is concerned, it has been pleaded in para no.4 of the plaint as under :

"rRi'pkr o"kZ 1942&43 esa fMlVyjh esa ikuh dh deh dh iwfrZ ds fy;s ,d vU; izLrko ikfjr fd;k ftlesa fMLVyjh ds fcYdqy lehi fLFkr ,d csjk ykyk okyk csjk vkSj mlds tko ¼[ksr½ dh Hkwfe dks vokIr djus dh ;kstuk cukbZ xbZ ftlesa Bsdsnkj ch-ds- bykok us csjk ykyk okyk dh 8 ls 11 ch?kk Hkwfe dks gh vokIr fd;k x;k rRi'pkr Hkfo"; dh vko';drk dks ns[krs gq;s ykyk okyk csjk dh Hkwfe 21 ch?kk 14 fcLok dh lEiw.kZ tehu dks vkokIr dj ysus dk izLrko ikfjr fd;k rFkk jktLo ea=h us mldk fdjk;k c<+kdj 113@6 vkuk dj fn;k ,oa rRi'pkr fnukad 18@6@1943 dks tks/kiqj LVsV xoZuesUV }kjk csjk tko ds iqjkus [kkrsnkjksa dks mldh eqvkotk jkf'k dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k o mDr Hkwfe dks vokIr dj fy;k x;kA"

(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 11:08:39 PM)

[2023/RJJD/003615] (7 of 12) [CFA-1/2023]

13. Regarding the fact of land being surrendered by Khan Bahadur B.K. Illava to Pratap, it has been pleaded in para no.6 of the plaint as under :

"6- ;g gS fd fnukad 12@1@1949 dks ch-ds- bykok }kjk mDr Hkwfe ds ckcr fu;eksa dh vogsyuk djrs gq;s mDr Hkwfe dks izrki uke ds O;fDr dks bl 'krZ ij fn;k fd mDr Hkwfe dk fdjk;k o lEcfU/kr jkf'k;k izrki }kjk jkT; ljdkj esa tek djokbZ tk;sxh ,oa bl Hkwfe ij tks Hkh Qly gksxh mldh ns[kjs[k Hkh izrki }kjk gh dh tk;sxh tc Bsdsnkj pkgsxk rks mls mDr Hkwfe dks NksM+uk gksxkA"

14. Regarding the factum of the compensation amount being paid by Khan Bahadur B.K. Illava having not been repaid by the State to him for the purpose of revocation of licence, it has been further pleaded in para no.6 as under :

"bl dkj.k fnukad 15@2@1954 ds i'pkr leLr fMLVyjh dkxksZ dh jkf'k ?kVrh nj esa rFkk eqvkots dh jkf'k :i;s 7257@6 dk iquZHkqxrku ewy Bsdsnkj ch-ds- bykok dks fd;k tkuk Fkk ijUrq mlds ;gka ugha gksus ds pyrs mijksDr of.kZr jkf'k ch-ds- bykok }kjk izkIr fd;k tkuk laHko ugha Fkk vkSj mDr jkf'k mlds }kjk izkIr ugha fd;s tkus dh lwjr esa R;kT; dh Js.kh esa ekuh xbZ FkhA ;gka ;g fy[kuk mfpr o rdZ laxr gksxk fd ch-ds- bykok dks mDr Bsds dh Hkwfe dks mi Bsdsnkjh ij nsus dk dkuwuu dRrbZ dksbZ gd o vf/kdkj gkfly ugha Fkk ysfdu mlds }kjk mDr Hkwfe fcuk l{ke izkf/kdkjh dks lwpuk fn;s mi Bsds ij nh xbZ ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr jkf'k ls lEcfU/kr mi Bsdsnkj dks fn;k tkuk fdlh Hkh :i esa U;k;laxr ,oa fof/klaxr ugha FkkA"

15. The fact of the revenue proceedings being initiated by the Department earlier at various stages has also been specifically pleaded in para nos.8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 of the plaint. It has been admitted in the plaint in para no.12 as under :

"12- ;g gS fd jkT; ljdkj us jktLo e.My ds le{k jsQjsUl la[;k 61/86/LR/JODHPUR is'k dj ukekUrjdj.k fnukad 27@12@1976 ,oa Øekad 199 fnukad 01@7@1976 dks fujLr djus dk fuosnu fd;k] ftls jktLo e.My us fnukad 5@11@1992 ds vk/kkj ij [kkfjt dj fn;k fd ewy nkok jktLFkku LVsV xaxkuxj 'kqxj fey fyfeVsM }kjk nk;j fd;k x;k Fkk mldh f}rh; vihy jktLo e.Mh esa fopkjk/khu Fkh vr% mlh Hkwfe ds fy, lanHkZ Lohdkj ugha dh tk ldrh FkhA jktLo e.My }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 5@11@1992 ds fo:) ,dyihB flfoy ;kfpdk la[;k 2012&2013 ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj esa nk;j dh tks fnukad 13@01@1997 dks (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 11:08:39 PM) [2023/RJJD/003615] (8 of 12) [CFA-1/2023] [kkfjt dh xbZ ,oa jktLo e.My ds vkns'k fnukad 5@11@1992 dks mfpr ekuk x;k] ftlds fo:) fo'ks"k vihy la[;k 352@1997 nk;j dh xbZ] ftlds }kjk Hkh ,dyihB ds fu.kZ; dks mfpr ekudj mDr fo'ks"k vihy dks Hkh [kkfjt dj fn;k x;kA"

16. Further the fact of a suit for compensation and for cancellation of the revenue entries having been filed and being pending has also been specifically pleaded in para no.15 of the plaint as under :

"15- ;g gS fd oknhx.k }kjk ,d nkok bLrdjkj fnyk ikus] dCtk o jn~n djus ukekUrjdj.k o vU; jktLo rgjhjs] fnyk ikus gtkZuk o gqDe berukbZ nokeh nQk 16] 91] 92&,] 179] 183 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e o /kkjk 90 jktLFkku Hkw jktLo vf/kfu;e ds rgr Jheku lgk;d dysDVj tks/kiqj esa vHk;izdk'k ds leLr okfjlku ds fo:) izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk tks ekStwnk esa fopkjk/khu gSA"

17. Meaning thereby, all the facts pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint have only been taken into consideration by the learned Court below. So far as the reliance placed upon the orders/judgments as passed by the revenue court is concerned, this Court is of the specific opinion that the said orders/judgments had been passed in the proceedings which have been admitted by the plaintiff in the plaint. The only fact that the said orders/judgments have been placed on record by the defendants and not by the plaintiffs cannot restrain the court from taking them into consideration. Admittedly, the orders/judgments passed by the courts are the public documents and the same, though placed on record by the defendants, can definitely be considered by the court while dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. Moreover, the factum of the said orders/judgments (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 11:08:39 PM) [2023/RJJD/003615] (9 of 12) [CFA-1/2023] having been passed, has specifically been pleaded by the plaintiff itself in the plaint.

18. In the present case, it is clear on record that the earlier proceedings before the revenue court between the same parties were pertaining to the same dispute and the same land in question. The finding of the revenue court in a lis between the same parties and the same dispute cannot be ignored by the civil court only on the ground that the said orders/judgments had been placed on record by the defendants and not by the plaintiffs. As held in Annant Pal Singh Vs. Sumer Singh; 2017 1 DNJ 1, admissions of the fact before the judicial authorities are sacrosanct in nature and if they are not given due weightage there cannot be any end to litigation. The Court in the said matter while considering the issue whether an admission made by a party in some earlier proceedings before a court can be considered while dealing with an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC held as under :

"Looked from another angle, this Court is of the further view that frivolous and vexatious suits & litigation ought to be nipped in the bud at the earliest and even if not strictly covered under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11, the same ought to be rejected u/Sec.151 CPC. The frivolous and fictitious plea of adoption propounded by the plaintiff which is the foundation of the whole suit ought to be taken note of at the threshold. His categorical admission in judicial proceedings and that too long back cannot be brushed aside lightly. Admissions of fact before the judicial authorities are sacrosanct in nature and if they are not given due weightage there cannot be any end to litigation. Courts are flooded with false & frivolous pleas and the same are required to be dealt with firmness and with firm hands. Thus, the suit of plaintiff- respondent being frivolous and vexatious, was liable to be rejected even under section 151 CPC."

19. In the matter of Pukhraj Soni Vs. Nisha Citlangiya; S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.103/2018 (decided on 24.10.2018) a Coordinate Bench of this Court while relying upon the earlier (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 11:08:39 PM) [2023/RJJD/003615] (10 of 12) [CFA-1/2023] decision in Temple of Thakur Shri Mathuradassji Chhota Bhandar Vs. Shri Kanhaiyalal & Ors.; (2008) 4 CivCC 133, held as under :

"The frivolous litigations are required to be nibbed in the bud at the earliest possible stage to safeguard the rights of adversary in facing the litigation and prolonging his agony. In such cases, even in absence of available grounds under various clauses of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC Court can very well invoke inherent powers under Section 151 CPC."

20. In view of the ratio as laid down in the above mentioned judgments and in view of overall facts of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that reliance of the learned Court below on the orders/judgments passed by the revenue court cannot be termed to be unwanted for. The same was definitely in purview of jurisdiction of the Court under Order VII Rule 11 coupled with Section 151 CPC.

21. Now coming on to the second issue whether the learned Court below was right in holding that the present suit for possession and injunction was not maintainable without the suit as preferred by the plaintiff before the revenue court for declaration of khatedari rights having first been decided, the finding of the Court on the said issue also cannot be interfered with in light of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Pyarelal (supra). In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the earlier judgment on the issue specifically held as under:

"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 Courts. 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 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 11:08:39 PM) [2023/RJJD/003615] (11 of 12) [CFA-1/2023] claimant in whom khatedari rights have been decreed by a revenue Court."

22. The learned Court below has also reached to a conclusion that the application for temporary injunction preferred by the plaintiff before the Revenue Court had been rejected and the said order attained finality for all purposes after having been confirmed by the Board of Revenue. Further it has specifically been considered by the learned Court below that the suit under Sections 16, 91, 92A, 179 & 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Section 90 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 has already been preferred by the plaintiffs before the Revenue Court and the same was pending consideration till date. In the said suit, the relief for declaration of khatedari rights had specifically been prayed for by the plaintiffs and further the relief for correction in the revenue record as well as possession has also been prayed for. Therefore, unless and until the said suit by the Revenue Court determining the rights of the parties is decided, the present suit for cancellation of sale-deed cannot be held to be maintainable.

23. In the specific opinion of this Court, the learned Court below has, after considering the precedential law as well as the documents available on record, rightly reached to the said conclusion. The ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgments makes it clear that where the khatedari rights are yet to be determined/declared, a party has to first approach the Revenue Courts. It is only after the said declaration (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 11:08:39 PM) [2023/RJJD/003615] (12 of 12) [CFA-1/2023] that any suit for consequential relief can be entertained by the Civil Court.

24. Coming on to the last issue whether the suit on behalf of the present plaintiff who was not a party to the sale deed of which the cancellation has been sought for, can be held to be maintainable at behest of the plaintiff or not, the learned Court relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & Ors.; AIR 2010 Supreme Court 2807, wherein, the ratio held was as under :

"Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, 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 nonest, or illegal or that it is not binding on him."

25. It is clear on record that the present plaintiff was not a party to the sale-deed of which the cancellation has been sought for. Meaning thereby, he was not the executant of the document of which the cancellation has been sought for.

26. In view of the settled proposition of law, it can be safely concluded that the present suit at behest of the plaintiff was not maintainable even on the said ground.

27. In view of the above observations, the findings as arrived by the learned Court below does not deserve any interference and the same are hereby affirmed. Consequently, the present appeal stands dismissed.

28. The stay petition and all the other pending applications also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

(REKHA BORANA),J 81-T.Singh/-

(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 11:08:39 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur