Ratan Lal And Ors vs Kannaji And Ors. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3228 Raj

[2023/RJJD/010943]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 258/2013

1. Ratan Lal S/o Shri Kanna Ji Dangi, Age about 48 years, R/o Village Manwakhera, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur (Raj.)

2. Smt. Ganga D/o Shri Kanna Ji Dangi, Age about 56 years, R/o Village Dangiyon ka Guda, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur (Raj.)

3. Smt. Gameri D/o Shri Kanna Ji Dangi, Age about 54 years, R/o Village Eklinpura, Tehsil Girwa, District Udiapur (Raj.)

4. Smt. Gulabi D/o Shri Kanna Ji Dangi, Age about 56 years, R/o Village Manwakhera, Tehsil Girwa, District Udiapur (Raj.)

----Appellant Versus

1. Shri Kanna Ji Dangi S/o Shri Shri Uda Ji Dangi

2. Smt. Lali W/o Shri Rooplal Dangi

3. Shri Sanjay @ Tulsi Ram S/o Shri Kanna Ji Dangi

4. Shri Dinesh S/o Shri Roop Lal Dangi

5. Shri Suresh S/o Shri Rooplal Dangi

6. Shri Dilip S/o Shri Rooplal Dangi, Minor (Age about 17 years) Through its Mother and Natural Guardian Above No.2 Smt. Lali W/o Shri Rooplal Dangi, All above No.1 to 6 are R/o Village Manwakhera Tehsil Girwa, District Udiapur (Raj.)

7. Shri Mangal Jain S/o Shri Chaggan Lal Jain R/o 2 Nakoda Nagar, Hiran Magri, Sector No.5, Udaipur (Raj.)

8. Smt. Geeta Goswami W/o Shri Ramesh Goswami, R/o Parahet, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur (Raj.)

9. Smt. Asha Rampuria W/o Shri Hament Rampuria (Jain), R/ o House No.1-Ta-27, Hiran Magri, Sector No.5, Udiapur (Raj.)

10. Smt. Basant Prabha W/o Shri Shanti Lal Jain, R/o 52 Main Road, Ashok Nagar, Udiapur (Raj.)

11. Shri Dev Dangi S/o Shri Kukaram Dangi, R/o Bhopalmagri, Hiran Magri, Sector No.3, Udiapur (Raj.)

12. M/s Silver Spring Construction Private Limited, Through: its Director Shri Premsingh S/o Shri Geesa Singh Chandana, R/o 2 Moti Chotta, Udaipur (Raj.).

13. Nagar Vikas Pranyas, Udaipur (Urban Improvement Trust), Through its Secretary, UIT, Udaipur (Raj.)

[2023/RJJD/010943] (2 of 4) [CFA-258/2013]

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Saruparia Mr. Nikhil Ajmera Mr. Vijay Rajpurohit Mr. Rakesh Chotia Mr. Prashant Tatia Mr. Rajat Rajpurohit Mr. Himanshu Bumb

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

19/04/2023

1. The present regular appeal has been preferred against the

order dated 08.03.2013 passed by Additional District Judge No.1,

Udaipur in Civil Original Case No.9/2012 whereby the application

under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as

preferred by defendants No.2 to 10 has been allowed and as a

consequence, the suit for declaration, correction in the revenue

record, partition and permanent injunction as preferred by the

plaintiffs has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts are that the plaintiffs preferred a suit for the

reliefs as abovementioned with a plea that the agricultural lands

as mentioned in the plaint were the ancestral properties and being

coparceners, they too have a share in the property. Therefore,

they prayed for partition of the properties and further prayed for

mutation in the revenue records and also for cancellation of the

sale deeds and other transfer deeds as executed by the other

coparceners in favour of the other defendants.

3. An application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil

Procedure was preferred by the defendants No.2 to 10 on two

[2023/RJJD/010943] (3 of 4) [CFA-258/2013]

grounds: Firstly, that the reliefs as prayed for specifically

pertained to agricultural lands and therefore, a suit before the

Civil Court for the said reliefs could not be maintainable.

Secondly, Kanna, the father of the plaintiffs, was alive on the

date of filing of the suit and therefore, the suit for partition at the

behest of the plaintiffs could not be maintained in view of Section

8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

4. A reply to the said application was preferred on behalf of the

plaintiffs and after hearing all the parties, the Court below

proceeded on to allow the application and as a consequence,

dismissed the suit. The learned Court below, after considering all

the earlier judgments on the point in issue, specifically concluded

that as the plaintiffs claimed share in the undivided property being

agricultural in nature, without a declaration qua the share of the

plaintiffs being made by a revenue Court, no consequential relief

for cancellation of any document could have been granted by the

Civil Court.

5. The Court, while considering the settled case laws on the

point in the matters of Vijay Singh vs. Buddha; 2012 (2) DNJ

Raj. 573 and Kamla Prasad vs. Krishnakant; 2006-07 RRT

(Suppl.) 394, specifically held that unless the relief of declaration

is granted by the revenue Court qua the agricultural lands, the

consequential relief for cancellation of any document qua the said

land can not be granted by the Civil Court.

6. The Court further held that the suit for partition of the

agricultural lands could also not have been entertained by the Civil

Court. Further, the Court also held in favour of the defendants that

the suit for partition at the behest of the plaintiffs could not be

[2023/RJJD/010943] (4 of 4) [CFA-258/2013]

maintained in view of the specific provision of Section 8 of the

Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

7. A perusal of the order impugned as well as the material

available on record makes it clear that the mutation entries made

in the revenue record in pursuance to the 14 documents executed

between the years 2007 to 2011 are under challenge in the

present suit. The said documents are in the nature of gift deed,

sale deeds, will, release deed and settlement deed. Admittedly, all

these documents pertain to agricultural lands. As considered by

the Court below, Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955,

provides that cognizance of any suit or application qua which the

relief could be granted by a revenue Court only, could not be

taken by a Civil Court. As held in the case of Pyarelal vs.

Shubhendra Pilania and Ors.; 2019 (3) SCC 692, it is the

settled proposition of law that unless and until the rights qua an

agricultural land are determined by a revenue Court, no

consequential relief for cancellation of any document pertaining to

the said land can be granted by a Civil Court.

8. In view of the well reasoned findings of the learned Court

below based on the settled proposition of law, this Court does not

find any ground to interfere with the order impugned and the

present appeal is therefore, dismissed.

9. The stay petition as well as all pending applications also

stand dismissed.

(REKHA BORANA),J 63-Sachin/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)