A suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that the suit is barred under Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

1. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties the appeal is decided finally at the admission stage.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code challenging the judgment & decree dated 26.10.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in the Civil Suit No.63/2012, whereby the trial court has allowed the application of the respondents No.1-7-original-defendants filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, rejecting the plaint of the appellant-plaintiff.

3. It is the case of the appellant-plaintiff that appellant is a society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001. The respondents No.1 to 6 had entered into an agreement dated 28.08.1993 to sell the suit land to the appellant-society. However, the respondent No.1 allegedly made gift of the said land to the respondent No.7 on 13.06.2012, and therefore the appellant-plaintiff filed the suit seeking specific performance of the said agreement in question. In the said suit, the respondents-defendants filed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The said application was resisted by the appellant-plaintiff by filing the reply. The trial court by the impugned order allowed the said application and dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code. Being aggrieved by the said order, deemed as decree, the present appeal has been filed.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. Ashok Mishra for the appellant-plaintiff that none of the clauses of Rule 11ORDER7 were attracted for rejecting the plaint of the plaintiff. According to him, Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, does not bar any filing of the suit, and therefore the plaint could not be rejected under clause(d) of the said provisions. He further submitted that it would be a matter of evidence whether the suit land is an agricultural land or not, and whether the respondents-defendants are khatedari tenants or not within the meaning of Section 15 of the said Tenancy Act, and therefore such suit cannot be dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11.

5. However, learned counsel Mr. Ashok Gaur Senior Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 7 vehemently submitted that the suit filed by the appellant seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 28.08.1993 was absolutely frivolous suit and therefore liable to be rejected at the threshold. Pressing into service, the provision contained in Section 42(b) of the Tenancy Act as also various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, the learned counsel has submitted that even if the said agreement is not believed to be a forged agreement, then also such a sale to person who is not the member of schedule caste or schedule tribe is prohibited under Section 42(b) of the Tenancy Act, and that the appellant society being a juristic person, any sale or transfer to such society is also prohibited under the said provision. Mr. Gaur has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Aanjaney Organic Herbal Pvt. Ltd., 2012(9) Scale 138 ; the decision of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Ulka & Ors., reported in RLW 2010(3) Raj.2636 , and in the case of V.A. Friendship Solar Park Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, 2011(3) DNJ (Raj.), 1261 , in support of his submissions. Relying upon the averments made in the plaint and the alleged agreement produced alongwith the plaint, the learned counsel Mr. Gaur has submitted that even as per the case of the plaintiff, the concerned respondents were the khatedari tenants, and therefore the provisions contained in Section 42(b) of the Tenancy Act would be attracted.

6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by lear