Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 2068

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Pyarelal - Appellant
Versus
Shubhendra Pilania (minor) Thr. Natural Guardian (father) Pradeep Kumar Pilania & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1269 of 2019, 1270 of 2019; Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21402 of 2015, 21403 of 2015
Decided On : 29-01-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Annam D N Rao, Adv., A. Venkatesh, Adv., Rahul Mishra, Adv., Aishwarya Bhati, Adv., Jaideep Singh, Adv., Vaidruti Mishra, Adv., Gopal T, Adv., Damodar Solanki, Adv., Adarsh Tiwari, Adv., Biswabara Dash, Adv., Tanuja P, Adv., Dashrath Singh, Adv., Suresh Pandey, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the relief sought by the appellant, related to khatedari rights and agricultural land, could only be granted by a revenue court under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, and the civil court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Tenancy Act - Section 207, Section 256, Section 88 - The court discussed the provisions of the Tenancy Act, specifically Section 207, Section 256, and Section 88, which bar the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters related to khatedari rights and agricultural land. The court highlighted that the relief sought by the appellant could only be granted by a revenue court under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, and therefore, the civil court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a civil suit against the respondents, seeking to declare a gift deed void and restrain the respondents from alienating the suit property. The respondents challenged the suit, contending that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as it was related to khatedari rights and was barred under the provisions of the Tenancy Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the relief sought by the appellant could only be granted by a revenue court under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. It held that the civil court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and dismissed the appeals.
Issues: The main issue was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the appellant, considering the provisions of the Tenancy Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Tenancy Act, specifically Section 207, Section 256, and Section 88, to determine that the relief sought by the appellant was exclusively within the jurisdiction of a revenue court. It emphasized that the civil court could not grant the relief until the khatedari rights of the appellant had been decreed by a revenue court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, holding that there was no merit in the challenge to the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. It also ordered that there shall be no order as to costs.

Judgement Key Points

When khatedari land is used for residential purposes, the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes depends on the nature of the relief sought and the applicable statutory provisions.

If the dispute involves the declaration of khatedari rights, the rights of possession, or the validity of land transfer related to khatedari holdings, the revenue court or a specialized revenue tribunal typically has exclusive jurisdiction. This is because the relevant land laws, such as tenancy or land reform acts, explicitly specify that matters concerning khatedari rights are to be tried by revenue courts. These laws emphasize that until khatedari rights are decreed by the revenue court, civil courts generally do not have jurisdiction to decide on such rights or related disputes (!) .

However, if the dispute is purely about ownership, possession, or transfer of the land used for residential purposes, and does not involve the declaration of khatedari rights or tenancy rights, then civil courts have jurisdiction. Civil courts are empowered to try cases related to property rights, ownership, and possession, provided there is no specific statutory bar (!) (!) (!) .

In cases where the land is used for residential purposes but the dispute involves the validity of a transfer or a claim of ownership that is not directly related to khatedari or tenancy rights, civil courts would generally have jurisdiction, as these issues are of a civil nature (!) .

In summary, for khatedari land used for residential purposes: - Civil courts have jurisdiction when the dispute is about ownership, possession, or transfer not involving the declaration of khatedari rights. - Revenue courts or specialized tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction when the dispute involves the declaration of khatedari rights, tenancy rights, or matters explicitly covered by land reform or tenancy laws (!) .

ORDER

Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. - 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:

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 (2 "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 and others (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 try the suit because until and unless revenue court has not declared khatedari rights, the civil court cannot declare the document void. Though in the citation cited by the defendants as stated above, the suit must be related for the declaration of basic khatedari rights, then only the jurisdiction is vested unto the revenue court, but if we carefully peruse the sai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document