Pola Ram vs Seeta
2022 Latest Caselaw 7396 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7396 Raj
Judgement Date : 18 May, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Pola Ram vs Seeta on 18 May, 2022

Bench: Rameshwar Vyas

(1 of 5) [CR-64/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 64/2022

1. Pola Ram S/o Lt. Shri Mangilal, aged about 60 years,

2. Sohan Ram s/o Lt. Shri Mangilal, aged about 55 years,

3. Chaina Ram s/o Lt. Shri Mangilal, aged about 50 years,

4. Kishanlal s/o Lt. Shri Mangilal, aged about 44 years,

5. Shankarlal s/o Lt. Shri Mangilal, aged about 30 years,

6. Mrs. Paani Devi w/o Shri Bhalaram D/o Lt. Shri Mangilal, aged about 47 years,

7. Mrs. Papli Devi w/o Lt. Shri Mangilal, aged about 82 years, All are R/o Bheel Basti, Village- Boranada, Tehsil - Luni, District Jodhpur. (Raj.)

----Petitioners

Versus

1. Mrs. Seeta W/o Shri Ugamaram D/o Lt. Shri Mangilal, R/o Bheelon Ki Dhani, Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur (Raj.)

2. LR's of Banshi Lal, S/o Late Shri Mangilal

2/1. Kalpana D/o Lt. Shri Banshi Lal,

2/2. Kamla W/o Late Shri Banshi Lal,

2/3. Yuvraj S/o Lt. Shri Banshi Lal,

2/4. Varsha D/o Lt. Shri Mangilal,

2/5. Shivani D/o Lt. Shri Mangilal,

2/6. Sapna D/o Lt. Shri Mangilal, All are R/o Bheel Basti, Village Boranada, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur. (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Tatia

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

Order

(2 of 5) [CR-64/2022]

18/05/2022

The instant civil revision petition under Section 115 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the

defendants-petitioners against the Order dated 11.04.2022 passed

by the Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Suit

No. 05/2022 titled as "Smt. Seeta Vs. Polaram & ors.", whereby

the application under Order VII, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of

C.P.C. filed by the defendants-petitioners has been rejected.

The facts of the case in short are that the plaintiff - Seeta

(respondent No. 1 herein) filed the civil suit for cancellation of

relinquish deed executed in favour of the defendants on the

ground that on said relinquish deed, signature of the plaintiff was

obtained by the defendants by playing fraud. She came to know

about fraud when she obtained certified copies of the revenue

record. The plaintiff further averred that on the basis of so-called

relinquish deed, defendants may transfer her share in the

agricultural land. Hence, she has prayed to declare disputed

relinquish deed as null and void with consequential relief not to

transfer share of the plaintiff in the agricultural land in question.

During pendency of the suit, defendants (petitioners herein) filed

an application under Order VII, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of

C.P.C. on the ground that since relinquish deed relates to

agricultural land, hence, only revenue court has jurisdiction to

entertain the suit. After hearing the parties, the trial court vide

Order dated 11.04.2022 has dismissed the said application with

the observation that plaintiff has not sought declaration of her

khatedari rights; she has filed the suit for declaring disputed

relinquish deed dated 08.07.2020 alleged to be prepared

fraudulently by the defendants, as null and void. The above relief

(3 of 5) [CR-64/2022]

cannot be granted by the revenue court. Aggrieved with the

above order, this revision petition has been filed by the

defendants-petitioners before this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the

material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying on the

judgments of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of

Smt. Geeta Devi and others Vs. Pushap Chand and others

reported in 2018(4) DNJ 1442 and Hasti Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

Sandeen Charan & ors. reported in (2018) 1 RLW 826,

submits that alleged relinquish deed is void ab initio and the suit is

for declaring share of the plaintiff in the agricultural land, which

relief can only be granted by the revenue court. He submits that

the trial court has erred in rejecting the application under Order

VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioners.

After going through the plaint filed by the plaintiff-

respondent No. 1, it reveals that the main challenge of the plaintiff

is against relinquish deed. As per averments in the suit, on

relinquish deed in dispute, signature of the plaintiff was obtained

by the defendants by playing fraud saying that this document

pertains to application seeking agricultural credit from the bank.

The suit is not for declaring khatedari rights of the plaintiff in the

agricultural land.

This Court in the case of Hasti Cement Pvt. Ltd. (supra), as

cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, has held as

under :-

"From what has been noticed hereinabove, it can be safely concluded that if the allegation in the plaint/substance of the allegations in the

(4 of 5) [CR-64/2022]

plaint allege the instrument to be void and no cancellation is required and without seeking such cancellation the relief of declaration pertaining to tenancy rights with regard to the agricultural land in question can be obtained by the plaintiff, only the revenue courts would have jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of the suit and consequently the jurisdiction of civil court would be barred. However, if the allegations made in the plaint make out a case of document being voidable, relief of cancellation of such a voidable document can only be granted by civil court and irrespective of the fact that the instrument pertains to agricultural land, the suit would not be barred under Section 207 of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, the trial court in each case, where a issue in this regard is raised, based on the stage of the suit i.e. either based on the plaint averments or the evidence available on record would have to come to a conclusion as to whether the facts as alleged, if established or as established in a case where evidence has been led makes the instrument void or voidable and decide accordingly."

In the present case, share of the plaintiff in the agricultural

land depends upon genuineness of the relinquish deed alleged to

be executed by her. Whether so-called relinquish deed is forged

one or not, is a question to be decided only by the civil court. The

revenue court would not have jurisdiction to deal with this

question. The main question involved in the suit is not regarding

declaring share of the plaintiff in the agricultural land but the main

point of controversy is regarding execution of the relinquish deed

and consequential reliefs. The trial court has not committed any

(5 of 5) [CR-64/2022]

error in dismissing the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of

C.P.C. by the petitioners. The order impugned passed by the trial