Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Pyarelal – Appellant
Versus
Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) Through Natural Guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1269-1270 of 2019, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 21402-21403 of 2015
Decided On : 29-01-2019
(1985) 1 SCC 475 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VII Rule 11(d) – Appellant seeking declaration of gift deed being void to the extent of the share claimed by the appellant – However, application for granting khatedari rights to appellant still pending before revenue court – Civil court cannot grant the relief until after revenue court decrees the suit in favour of appellant – Held, appellant has no right to seek relief before civil court without first getting his khatedari rights decreed by the revenue court. (Para 18, 22)
(2001) 3 SCC 24 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The appellant alleged that on the death of Mangalram and Rukma Devi, the agricultural land in question devolved upon respondent No. 3 and his sister Kushali Devi (mother of the Plaintiff) in equal shares. Kushali Devi died intestate and her share devolved upon her children - the appellant and respondent Nos. 7 to 10 in equal measure. The appellant and respondent Nos. 7 to 10 claim to be in possession of their share in the suit property. The appellant alleged that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 colluded with the Sarpanch of the village and got the name of respondent No. 3 recorded as the owner of the land belonging to the appellant and respondent Nos. 7 to 10. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 registered a gift deed dated 10 February 2011 in favour of respondent No. 1.
On 13 March 2012, the appellant filed a civil suit against the respondents praying that the gift deed dated 10 February 2011 be declared void to the extent of the share claimed by the appellant and that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 be restrained from alienating the suit property. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 contending that the appellant, who is not a recorded khatedar of the suit land, had filed a suit before the revenue court for the declaration of his khatedari right and the suit preferred by the appellant before the Trial court was liable to be dismissed.
The Trial court dismissed the application. The objections were dismissed by Trial court.
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 challenged the order of the Trial court in revision under Section 115 of the Code. The High Court allowed the revision. The High Court held that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
The review petition preferred by appellant was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The appellant has no right to seek relief before civil court without first getting his khatedari rights decreed by the revenue court.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
The Supreme Court considered the case of Pyarelal (appellant) in Civil Appeal Nos. 1269-1270 of 2019 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 21402-21403 of 2015, decided on 29 January 2019 by Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud.['2019 Supreme(SC) 342'] (!) (!) [1000632520001]
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals in the present case arise from two orders dated 13 November 2014 and 2 March 2015 of the Rajasthan High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. By an order dated 13 November 2014, the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents. The challenge was to an order dated 26 August 2013 of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sikar rejecting the objection to the jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit filed by the appellant. The appellant filed a petition for review before the High Court. The learned single Judge dismissed the petition on 2 March 2015.
3. The family tree of the appellant is depicted below:
Bholu (deceased)
Mangalram (deceased
Rukma devi (wife, deceased)
Bhagwan Singh (R3)
Kushi devi
Pradeep Kumar (R2)
Shubhendra (R1)
Pyarelal (Appellant)
Amrita (R7)
Shanti (R8)
Kamla (R9)
Santosh R10)
The Sub-Registrar and Tehsildar are respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively.
4. The appellant alleged that on the death of Mangalram and Rukma Devi, the agricultural land in question devolved upon respondent No. 3 and his sister Kushali Devi (mother of the Plaintiff) in equal shares. Kushali Devi died intestate and her share devolved upon her children - the appellant and respondent Nos. 7 to 10 in equal measure. The appellant and respondent Nos. 7 to 10 claim to be in possession of their share in the suit property. The appellant alleged that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 colluded with the Sarpanch of the village and got the name of respondent No. 3 recorded as the owner of the land belonging to the appellant and respondent Nos. 7 to 10. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 registered a gift deed dated 10 February 2011 in favour of respondent No. 1.
5. On 13 March 2012, the appellant filed a civil suit, 62/2012 against the respondents praying that the gift deed dated 10 February 2011 be declared void to the extent of the share claimed by the appellant and that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 be restrained from alienating the suit property. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“The Code”) contending that the appellant, who is not a recorded khatedar of the suit land, had filed a suit before the revenue court for the declaration of his khatedari right and the suit preferred by the appellant before the Trial court was liable to be dismissed. In reply, the appellant admitted that a suit had been filed before the revenue court for the declaration of his khatedari right but contended that the civil court had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.
6. On 26 August, 2013, the Trial court dismissed the application, taking the view that any conclusion on the question of jurisdiction can only be drawn after framing preliminary issues and recording evidence of the parties. The objections were dismissed by Trial court with the following observations:
“6. So far as present application is concerned, in the said application, the first ground taken by the defendants is that the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 7 to 10 are not recorded kashtkar of the disputed land and they have already filed suit in the revenue court for getting their khatedari right declared. Therefore, civil courts have no jurisdiction to try the present suit.
7. In this context, the defendants cited Rukmani v. Bhola (SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 553/1993) dated 20.12.2011, while plaintiff cited DNJ 2013(1) Rajasthan 358. In the citation of the defendants, though the Hon'ble High Court has set this principle that if the relief of declaring any document ineffective and void is sought for and in pith and substance, the suit is related with khatedari rights, then revenue court would have jurisdiction to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
