Rajasthan High Court
Ramesh Chand Nagwada And Another vs Mishri Lal And Others on 24 August, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 91/2014
1. Ramesh Chand Nagwada S/o Narayan Lal Nagwada, R/o
Bhanwarbadi, Vijay Nagar, Distt. Ajmer
2. Balu S/o Raghunath R/o Data Nilawari, Tehsil Baneda,
Distt. Bhilwara, Since Deceased Through Legal
Representative
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Mishri Lal S/o Late Polu R/o Papadiya Kheda, Tehsil
Shahpura, Distt. Bhilwara.
2. Gheesa @ Gheesa Lal S/o Namalum R/o Nagar, Tehsil
Masuda, Distt. Ajmer
3. Smt Panchi D/o Ghasi W/o Gordhan R/o Nagar, Tehsil
Masuda, Distt. Ajmer
4. Ghewar Chand Kumat S/o Sohan Lal Kumat, R/o
Bhanwarbadi Vijay Nagar, Distt. Ajmer
5. Kalyan S/o Namalum R/o Data Nilawari Tehsil Baneda,
Distt. Bhilwara.
6. Sanjay S/o Bhanwar Lal Kumawat R/o Vijay Nagar, Distt.
Ajmer
7. Nayab Tehsildar, Tehsil Vijay Nagar, Distt. Ajmer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
24/08/2022
1. Application (I.A.No.1/2020) for seeking deletion of the name
of respondent No.3 namely Smt. Panchi Devi is allowed.
2. Counsel for petitioners submits that an application
(I.A.No.3/2022) has been filed for taking legal representatives of
(2 of 5) [CR-91/2014]
the petitioner No.1 Ramesh Chand Nagwada. It has been stated
that petitioner No.1 Ramesh Chand Nagwada died on 25.11.2020
during pandemic of Covid-19 and his legal representatives named
in the application may be taken on record to pursue the revision
petition.
3. Counsel for respondent has no objection in condoning the
delay and in allowing the application at least for the purpose to
pursue the present revision petition.
4. In view of above, delay in filing the application is condoned
and the legal representatives of deceased petitioner No.1 Ramesh
Chand Nagwada are substituted in the present revision petition.
The amended cause title enclosed with the application is taken on
record.
5. Accordingly, application (I.A.No.3/2022) stands dispose of.
6. With the consent of counsel for both the parties, heard this
revision petition on merits.
7. The revision petition has been filed against the order dated
27.05.2014 passed in Civil Suit No.159/2013 by the Court of
Additional District Judge No.2, Beawar, Distt. Ajmer, whereby the
application of petitioners filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was
dismissed.
8. Counsel for petitioners submits that the jurisdiction of civil
court to trial the present civil suit is barred by virtue of Section
207 of the Rajasthan tenancy Act, as the subject land is
agriculture in nature and at the most the suit can be filed before
the revenue court only. He has placed reliance upon the judgment
Jagdish Narain Pareek Vs. Kamlesh Jain and Ors.[(2017) 4
RLW 3434(Raj.)].
(3 of 5) [CR-91/2014]
9. On perusal of the plaint, it appears that plaintiff instituted
the present civil suit alleging to create a forged agreement dated
15.02.1984 in the name of his deceased father namely Polu and
thereafter one civil suit for specific performance was instituted on
the basis of that agreement which was decreed in favor of one
Mawa Ram and in execution, the sale deed in question has been
executed. The plaintiff has prayed that all the proceedings are
suffer from fraud and sale deed dated 20.06.2013 be declared as
forged and fabricated and accordingly be canceled. Consequential
prayers to cancel the mutation in the revenue record and
permanent injunction has also been prayed for.
10. The perusal of plaint clearly reveals that the subject matter
of suit give rise to the civil right of the parties relating to
preparing forged documents & procuring decree from civil court by
playing fraud, in relation to the subject land of plaintiff. The
issues of forgery and fraud are involved. On reading of the plaint
as a whole, it nowhere transpires that the present suit is not
triable by the civil court. Merely because the documents which
have been challenged by plaintiff, pertain to an agriculture land,
does not oust the jurisdiction of the civil court.
11. In case of Horil Vs. Keshav and Anr. [(2012) 5 SCC
525], Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under:
"We are of the view that Revenue courts are neither
equipped nor competent to effectively adjudicate on
allegations of fraud and has overtones of criminality and
the courts really skilled and experienced to try such
issues are the courts constituted under the Code of Civil
Procedure."
12. In another case of Shri Ram And Anr. Vs. Ist Addl. Distt.
Judge and Ors. [(2001) 3 SCC 24], Hon'ble the Supreme
(4 of 5) [CR-91/2014]
Court, while considering jurisdiction of civil court in relation to the
cancellation of sale deed relating to agriculture land, held as
under:
"On analysis of the decisions cited above, 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 been obtained on the ground
of fraud or impersonation cannot be directed to file a suit for
declaration in the Revenue Court, the 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 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."
13. The judgment delivered in case of Jagdish Narain Pareek
(Supra) referred by petitioners is not applicable to the present
matter for the reason that petitioners have filed this suit being son
of Polu and Polu had purchased the land from Panchi through
registered document. Merely entering in the revenue record of the
previous seller would not change the issue of ownership relating to
the khatedari rights.
14. In that view of matter, in the opinion of this Court, the
present suit is maintainable and triable by the civil court as the
issues of fabrication of the documents and procuring decree of
civil court by fraud & challenging the sale deed, can be examined
and adjudicated by the civil court only.
(5 of 5) [CR-91/2014]
15. The trial court in the impugned order dated 24.05.2014 has
discussed all these aspects and with an elaborately reasoned
order, has dismissed the application under Order 7 rule 11 CPC.
16. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 115
CPC does not find any material illegality or jurisdictional error in
the impugned order, dismissing the application filed under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC. Hence, no interference is called for by this Court. As
a result, the present revision is hereby dismissed.
17. All other pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed
of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SACHIN/48
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
