TIWARI, M.—The above two appeals under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short `the Act') are taken together for a common judgment as the they are directed against the same common impugned judgment dated 18.3.2002 of Revenue Appellate Authority Sriganganagar, involving the same parties and common law points. A copy of the judgment may be placed in each of the file separately.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case leading to these appeals are that the respondent No. 1 plaintiff filed two suits against the appellants-defendants and respondents No. 2 and 3 for declaration of khatedari rights, division of holding and recovery of possession with regard to the suit lands, under sections 88, 53 and 183 of the Act in the court of Assistant Collector (S.D.O. Srikaranpur (Sriganganagar). During the course of suits appellant-defendants filed applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) for rejection of the plaints, which were allowed by the sub-Divisional Officer vide his judgment dated 20.3.2001 which was challenged in first appeal under Section 223of the Act before Revenue Appellate Authority Sriganganagar who allowed both the appeals and remanded the suits for decision on merits after framing necessary issues and leading evidence by his impugned judgment dated 18.3.02 against which two appeals are preferred by the appellants-defendants under Section 225 of the Act in this court.

3. We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the respondent-plaintiff Surendra Singh had executed a power of attorney in favour of the appellant-defendant Onkar Singh who sold the disputed land in favour of appellant No. 2 defendant Gursharan Singh through registered sale deeds. The respondent No. 1 plaintiff has sought relief of declaring of the sale deeds as null and void. This relief can only be granted by a civil court and not by a revenue court. The respondent-plaintiff's other relief for declaration of khatedari right, partition and recovery of possession are ancillary to the main relief of declaring the sale deeds null and void. The learned counsel cited 1992(2) RLR 401 in support of his contention. It was further submitted that unless the sale deeds are cancelled, no related ancillary relief can be given by revenue court. The learned counsel cited 1993 RRD 326 to support his contention. The learned counsel also disputed jurisdiction of revenue court in such a controversy citing 1988 RRD 312, 1993 RRD 673, 1997 RLW 131 and 1995 RRD 760. It was further pleaded that the remand order of Revenue Appellate Authority is illegal and unjustified when the case can be finally decided under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC to avoid protracted litigation and under hardship to the parties.

5. Vehemently countering the contentions of the appellants, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the main relief sought by the respondent-plaintiff is not about cancellation of the sale deed; but about declaration of khatedari rights, division of holdings and recovery of possession, which can only be granted by a revenue court. At the same time it is also pleaded that the effect of the forged sale deeds which were never executed by the plaintiff, as claimed by the appellants-defendants, should be ignored being void in effect. It is contended that the respondent-plaintiff neither executed any power of attorney for sale of the disputed land nor authorised appellant No. 1 defendants to carry out any sale of the plaintiffs khatedari lands. When the respondent-plaintiff has challenged the veracity of alleged power of attorney and sale deeds, the final decision with regard to these disputed facts can only be made after framing of necessary issues and leading evidence; but the trial Court has not done so and without verifying the facts regarding power of attorney and the sale deeds rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11of the CPC. There are no such statements in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document