Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Romel Singh Panwar vs Smt. Amarjeet Kaur (2025:Rj-Jd:514) on 6 January, 2025
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2025:RJ-JD:514]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 12/2024
Romel Singh Panwar S/o Late Shri Gurmeet Singh, Aged About
52 Years, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Village Raisinghnagar, Distt.
Ganganagar (Present Anupgarh) Rajasthan. At Present R/o
House No. 266 Sector 6, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Vendee
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur W/o Late Gurmeet Singh, B/c Jat
Sikh, R/o Dr. Gurmeet Singh Memorial Hospital,
Panchayat Samiti Road, Raisinghnagar, Distt. Ganganagar
(Present Anupgarh) Rajasthan. Through Power Of
Attorney Karandeep Singh S/o Karnel Singh, B/c Jat Sikh,
R/o House No. 655-A, Shakti Nagar, Kalka, Panchkula,
Hariyana
2. Shri Karandeep Singh S/o Karnel Singh, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o
House No. 655-A, Shakti Nagar, Kalka, Panchkula,
Hariyana . Power Of Attorney
3. Shri Parvinder Kumar S/o Shri Shiv Kumar, B/c Vishnoi,
R/o Ward No. 09, Raisinghnagar, Teh. Raisinghnagar, Dist.
Ganganagar (Present Anupgarh) Raj - Buyer.
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Tehsildar Raisinghnagar,
Dist. Ganganagar (Present Anupgarh) Rajasthan.
5. Sub Registrar, Raisinghnagar, Teh. Raisinghnagar, Distt.
Ganganagar. (Present Anupgarh) Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.L. Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abninav Jain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
06/01/2025
1. With the consent of parties, this civil first appeal is being
disposed of at the admission stage.
[2025:RJ-JD:514] (2 of 4) [CFA-12/2024]
2. The sole appellant is aggrieved by order of rejection of plaint
under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. vide judgment and decree dated
18.12.2023/03.01.2024 passed in Civil Original Suit No.38/2023.
3. The plaintiff-appellant had brought the suit stating therein
that late Gurmeet Singh, father of the plaintiff had purchased a
property 'benami' in the name of his wife Ameerjeet Kaur, who
was mother of the plaintiff. Amerjeet Kaur, later on, sold the
property to respondent No.3; though the property was joint family
property. Hence, prayer was made for cancellation of the sale-
deed executed by Amerjeet Kaur in favour of respondent No.3-
Parvinder Kumar.
4. The Court below while rejecting the plaint was of the view
that the plaintiff should have first sought for declaration of his
Khaterdari right/title over the suit property by the Competent
Revenue Court, only thereafter, the plaintiff could have made
prayer for cancellation of the sale-deed.
5. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that a relief
for cancellation of sale-deed cannot be granted by the Revenue
Court, therefore, the suit was maintainable before the Civil Court
and the Court below has taken wrong view of the proposition of
law.
6. Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act reads as follows :
"207. Suits and applications cognizable by
revenue court only-(1) All suits and
applications of the nature specified in the
Third Schedule shall be heard and determined
by a revenue court.
(2) No court other than a revenue court shall
take cognizance of any such suit or application
[2025:RJ-JD:514] (3 of 4) [CFA-12/2024]
or of any suit or application based on a cause
of action in respect of which any relief could
be obtained by means of any such suit or
application.
Explanation-If the cause of action is one in
respect of which relief might be granted by the
revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief
asked for from the civil court is greater than,
or additional to, or is not identical with, that
which the revenue court have granted."
7. As per Schedule III of the Act, for declaration for Khatedari
right in respect of agricultural land, a suit would be maintainable
before a revenue court as jurisdiction of the civil court is barred.
Only a real title holder can seek for a decree of cancellation of sale
deed. Indisputably, the agricultural land in the present case was
not recorded in the name of plaintiff-appellant. Identical issue was
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pyarelal Vs.
Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) through Natural Guardian
(Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania & Ors. reported in
(2019) 3 SCC 692.
8. The case of the plaintiff in Pyarelal's case (supra) was that
they were co-sharers in possession of their share in the suit
property, which was transferred by one of the co-sharer to some
other through a registered gift deed dated 10.02.2011. The gift
deed was challenged before the Civil Court. Contention raised was
that unless the plaintiffs were recorded Khatedar or they have got
a declaration of their Khatedari right from the Revenue Court, they
could not have approached civil court for cancellation of gift deed.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the aforesaid legal approach.
[2025:RJ-JD:514] (4 of 4) [CFA-12/2024]
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Mahendra Kumar & Ors. Vs.
Smt. Maya Devi & Ors. reported in (2021) 1 DNJ 174 for his
contention that the case of Pyarelal (supra) was distinguished in
the aforesaid case and the present case is covered squarely by the
judgment in Mahendra Kumar's case (supra).
10. In Mahendra Kumar's case (supra), the application for
rejection of the plaint was rejected by the trial Court. In the suit,
plaintiff had sought for declaration as void and ineffective with
respect to gift deed dated 18.11.2014 and will dated 18.11.2014.
11. In Mahendra Kumar's case (supra), specific case of the
plaintiff was that the suit property was joint family property and
the father of the plaintiff Sahab Ram had no right to deal with the
joint family property.
12. In the case on hand, it cannot be accepted that the suit
property was joint family property of the plaintiff-appellant. The
suit property in fact was self acquired property of the mother of
the plaintiff by purchase through registered sale-deed and no one,
even her husband could have raised a defence that the aforesaid
property was purchased 'benami' in the name of his wife after
enactment of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act.
13. Evidently, the Court below has not committed any
jurisdictional error.
14. Hence, the instant civil first appeal stands dismissed.
15. Let the Court fee deposited by the plaintiff-appellant be
returned.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
33-deep/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
