Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Sohni Devi vs Bhanwarlal (2025:Rj-Jd:2907) on 16 January, 2025
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2025:RJ-JD:2907]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 139/2024
Smt. Sohni Devi W/o Sh. Sugnaram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Chhapla, Teh. Bhopalgarh, Dist. Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Bhanwarlal S/o Sh. Ramnarayan, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Lalap, Teh. Nagaur, Dist. Nagaur.
2. Sita D/o Sh. Ramnarayan, R/o Lalap, Teh. Nagaur, Dist.
Nagaur.
3. Suresh S/o Sh. Ramnarayan, R/o Lalap, Teh. Nagaur, Dist.
Nagaur.
4. Ramnarayan S/o Sh. Moolaram, R/o Lalap, Teh. Nagaur,
Dist. Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Mehriya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nimba Ram Choudhary
Mr. Chetan Singh Bhati
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
16/01/2025
1. Heard the parties.
2. By impugned order dated 08.05.2024 passed in Civil Case
No.69/2012, the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Nagaur
dismissed the prayer of the defendant-petitioner to reject the
plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
3. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 had filed the aforesaid suit for
declaration that the sale deed executed by their father
Ramnarayan (respondent No.4) in favour of the petitioner - Smt.
Sohani Devi on 02.06.2007 in respect of Khasra No.502 is null and
[2025:RJ-JD:2907] (2 of 4) [CR-139/2024]
void; not affecting the interest of the plaintiff. Further prayer was
for injunction, restraining the petitioner from dealing with the said
property.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not
disputed that the suit property was ancestral property of the
plaintiff. It is also not disputed that Khasra Nos.235 and 502 were
agricultural lands besides other Khasras. It is specifically admitted
in the plaint that the said Khasras are recorded in the revenue
records in the name of Ramnarayan (Respondent No.4), the
vendor of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that evidently
respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not recorded Khatedars in respect of
agricultural land (the suit property), therefore, they are required
to get their Khatedari Right first declared by the revenue court
before seeking any relief for declaration of sale deed as void etc
before the civil court.
5. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor)
through Natural Guardian (Father) Pradeep Kumar Pilania
& Ors. reported in (2019) 3 SCC 692.
In Pyarelal's case also, plaintiffs were not recorded tenants
and they had challenged transfer of their share in the joint
property. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the relevant
provisions of Section 207, Section 88 and Schedule III of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act and held that the jurisdiction of the civil
court was barred under Section 207 of the said Act, in respect of
the subject matter, on which, jurisdiction with the revenue court
was vested. As per Schedule III, it is jurisdiction of the revenue
[2025:RJ-JD:2907] (3 of 4) [CR-139/2024]
court to deal with declaration in respect of the agricultural land as
well as declaration of khatedari Right. Unless the plaintiffs get
their Khatedari Rights declared by the revenue court, their prayer
as made in the suit was not maintainable before the civil court.
6. Para No.22 of the Pyarelal's case (supra) is being reproduced
below:-
"22. In the present case, the High Court has
proceeded on the basis that the suit seeking a
declaration of the gift deed relating to disputed
agricultural land situated in Sikar as void and
restraining Respondent Nos.1 to 5 from transfer or
sale of the agricultural land before the civil court is
squarely covered by the bar to the jurisdiction of the
civil court under the provisions of the Tenancy Act.
The claim of the appellant to khatedari rights is
pending adjudication by a revenue court which has the
exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such a claim.
The appellant has no right to seek relief before the
civil court without first getting his Khatedari rights
decreed by the revenue court."
7. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the suit is
at the stage of plaintiff's evidence after framing of the issues.
Therefore, let the civil court decide whether the plaintiffs are
entitled to get relief or not.
Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Ganesh
Ram Vs. Lota Ram & Ors. decided by this Court on 01.04.2022
vide S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.45/2021, wherein
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pyarelal's case (supra)
was also noticed.
8. The case of Ganesh Ram (supra) is distinguishable in the
facts and circumstances of the present case for the reason that in
Ganesh Ram's case (supra), cancellation of adoption deed and
[2025:RJ-JD:2907] (4 of 4) [CR-139/2024]
permanent injunction was sought for. There was no relief claimed
for any declaration in respect of any agricultural land
9. Learned counsel for the respondents further relied on
judgment in Maniram & Ors. Vs. Mamkori & Ors. as well as on
Hasti Cement Pvt. Limited Vs. Sandeep Charan & Ors.
10. Since this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pyarelal's case (supra), evidently, the
jurisdiction of the civil court was statutorily barred, therefore,
learned trial court had wrongly exercised jurisdiction vested in it.
Hence, the impugned order stands set aside and the plaint stands
rejected.
11. Accordingly, this civil revision stands allowed.
12. It is made clear that if the plaintiff opts to prefer any suit
before the revenue court, that can be done within the period of
limitation which would start run from the date of this order.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
32-nitin/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
