Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Parvat Singh vs Norin (2025:Rj-Jd:47295) on 3 November, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:47295]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 53/2025
Parvat Singh S/o Shri Sawai Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Patodi, Tehsil Bisau, Dist. Churu, At Present R/o Shekhawat
Hospital, Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Suratgarh, Tehsil Suratgarh,
Dist. Sriganganagar,raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Norin W/o Rohit Kundu, D/o Shri Pramod Kumar R/o 11,
Ftp (Paniwala) At Present R/o 18 Mainview Bvd,
Truganina, Vic 3029, Australia Through Power Of Attoreny
Holder Suman W/o Shri Pramod Kumar R/o Pirkamdiya,
Tehsil Tibbi, Dist. Hanumangarh,raj.
2. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Khashiram, R/o Pirkamdiya, Tehsil
Mansarover, Jaipur Tehsil And Dist. Jaipur,raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Falgun Buch
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
03/11/2025
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner -
defendant against the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by the
learned Additional District Judge No.1, Hanumangarh in Civil
Original Case No.22/2024 (CIS No.84/2024), whereby the
application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rule
11 of C.P.C. was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted that
the respondent-plaintiff instituted a civil suit, inter alia, seeking
cancellation of sale deed dated 20.07.2017, along with a decree of
permanent injunction restraining the petitioner-defendant from
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:44:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47295] (2 of 5) [CR-53/2025]
selling, mortgaging, transferring, or otherwise alienating the
agricultural land comprised in 11 FTP Account No.6/21 PN
188/255 (33), Kila Nos. 5/1, 5/2, 6/1, 6/2, 7, 14, 15/1, 15/2 and
PN 189/255 (34), Kila Nos.1, 2/1, 2/2, 9, 10, measuring in total
3.795 hectares, during the pendency of the suit, and further
prayed for protection of her peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the said land.
3. It was contended that during the pendency of the said suit, the
petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the
plaint on the ground that the land in question, being agricultural in
nature, falls under Schedule III of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act,
1955, and hence, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under
Section 207 of the said Act. Learned counsel submitted that the
trial Court, while rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC, failed to consider that a revenue suit with regard to the land
in question is already pending between the parties before the
competent revenue Court.
4. It was further contended that the respondent-plaintiff is
claiming the suit property as ancestral land and asserting her
share therein. Accordingly, unless and until her khatedari rights
are determined by the competent revenue Court, she has no locus
standi to maintain a suit for cancellation of the gift deed and sale
deed dated 20.07.2017. Only after such determination or
declaration of khatedari rights, could she seek cancellation of the
said documents by which her alleged share has been transferred.
5. It was further submitted that the learned trial Court erred in
holding that the suit is maintainable before the Civil Court, as
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:44:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47295] (3 of 5) [CR-53/2025]
without the prior declaration of khatedari rights in her favour by
the revenue Court, the respondent-plaintiff cannot seek either
cancellation of the gift deed and sale deed dated 20.07.2017 or
the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the agricultural
land. In essence, until the declaration of khatedari rights, the
plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the present suit.
6. Reliance was placed upon the following judgments:
• Shyam Sunder & Ors. v. Smt. Kushalkanwar & Ors.,
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.87/2022;
• Laxmi Devi & Ors. v. Smt. Kushalkanwar & Ors., S.B.
Civil Revision Petition No.112/2022;
• Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania & Ors., Civil Appeal
Nos.1269-1270 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.21402-
21403 of 2015), decided on 29.01.2019.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff
supported the impugned order dated 09.12.2024 and submitted
that the relief of cancellation of the gift deed and sale deed dated
20.07.2017 squarely falls within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court.
The other reliefs sought are merely ancillary in nature; therefore,
the learned trial Court rightly held that the suit is maintainable,
and the impugned order calls for no interference by this Court.
8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the
respondent-plaintiff relied upon the following decisions:
• Kailash Chandra Goyal v. Ramesh Chandra Goyal &
Ors., S.B. Civil First Appeal No.198/2022, decided on
11.01.2023;
• Smt. Bhagwati Kunwar & Ors. v. Gulab Singh & Ors.,
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:44:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47295] (4 of 5) [CR-53/2025]
Civil Revision Petitions No.267/2008 and 266/2008, decided
on 02.08.2019;
• Pratapi (Smt.) v. Jhamku, Civil Revision Petition
No.28/2012, decided on 02.04.2013.
9. Heard.
10. It is not in dispute before this Court that the respondent-
plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of the gift deed and
sale deed dated 20.07.2017. It is also undisputed that the
revenue Court is not competent to grant the relief of cancellation
of such documents. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court to try such a suit is not barred under Section 207 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. It is well-settled that the Civil Court
possesses inherent jurisdiction unless such jurisdiction is expressly
or by necessary implication excluded.
11. A bare perusal of the plaint makes it evident that the
respondent-plaintiff's primary relief is the cancellation of the gift
deed and sale deed dated 20.07.2017. The prayer made in the
plaint against the petitioner - defendant not to interfere with
petitioner's peaceful possession over the disputed land is not
independent but merely an ancillary issue to the main relief on
account of the suit being filed by the respondent - plaintiff against
the petitioner - defendant for cancellation of the said deed.
Hence, the suit cannot be held to be barred under Section 207 of
the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and the learned trial Court has rightly
exercised its jurisdiction in rejecting the petitioner's application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The argument that the respondent -
plaintiff had filed the suit for cancellation of the gift and sale deed
without first determination of khatedari rights by the revenue
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:44:57 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47295] (5 of 5) [CR-53/2025]
Courts has no substance as the khatedari rights or the tenancy
rights granted to tenants over the rights allowing them to cultivate
and hold the land are totally independent and have nothing to do
with the dispute with regard to land being gifted or sold without
any authority of law.
12. In the opinion of this Court, the plaint submitted by the
respondent - plaintiff discloses a cause of action and, therefore,
could not have been rejected on an application filed under Order
VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
13. In the result, the revision petition fails, it is hereby
dismissed. No order as to cost.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
16-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:44:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
