Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It was vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit in question was barred by law on account of bar created by Section 207 of the Tenancy Act, as admittedly the land in question is agricultural land and the plaintiff has claimed the sale deed as void and consequently the relief as claimed in the plaint can only be granted by the revenue court and the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application.
Further submissions were made that the trial court was obsessed with the fact that earlier applications filed by another defendant under Section 11 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961 read with Order VII Rule 11 CPC, was rejected, and another application filed by said defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Order I Rule 9 CPC was also rejected, which cannot be a reason for rejection of the present application and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

A Division Bench in the case of Jaswant Singh (supra) after considering almost all the judgments available till then, laid down as under:

"Thus upon a consideration of the several cases of this Court on the point, it clearly emerges that if the suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession treating the deed as wholly void or a nullity, then a prayer for cancellation of the deed was unnecessary and was not required to be made by the plaintiff, who could ignore the void document. In such cases there was no unsurmountable difficulty in the way of the plaintiff in seeking relief by way of declaration of tenancy rights and claiming possession before a competent revenue court. The present case is not one in which the alleged sale deed was admitted to have been executed by the plaintiff or her predecessor-in-interest or that she sought to avoid the same on the ground that she was made to execute the deed by fraud or misrepresentation. The plaintiff claimed in the suits that sale deeds were not executed by her. In such circumstances the sale deeds were alleged to be void and not voidable and the same could be ignored by the plaintiff."

Coming to the judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondents, it would be noticed that in the case of Shyam Kumar (supra), wherein, the allegations were that the defendant purported to be the power of attorney holder of plaintiff executed the sale deed of the land pertaining to plaintiff, whereas in fact he was not appointed by the plaintiff nor he was holder of power of attorney, the plaintiff claimed the sale deed as void and inoperative and sought cancellation, the Court laid down as under:

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suhrid Singh vs. Randhir Singh & Ors. : (2010) 12 SCC 112, with regard to the issue pertaining to nature of the declaration required to be sought pertaining to the instruments, laid down 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 non est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to A and B, two brothers. A executes a sale deed in favour of C. Subsequently A wants to avoid the sale. A has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if B, who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by A is invalid/void and non est/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If A, the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If B, who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17 (iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if B, a non- executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided under Section 7(iv) (c) of the Act."