The civil court has jurisdiction to try a suit for cancellation of a sale deed of agricultural land, even if the plaintiff also seeks a declaration of his share in the land, as the main relief sought is the cancellation of the sale deed.

1. - This revision petition is directed against order dated 13.2.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nimbahera in Civil Suit No. 36/2008, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. stands rejected.

2. The respondent/plaintiff preferred a suit inter alia against the petitioner/defendant for declaration, partition, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction in respect of agriculture land ad measuring 38 bighas 6 biswas comprising Khasra Nos. 191, 684, 724, 18 and 733 of revenue village Pipalwas. It is alleged that the said land was khatedari land of Hazari, the father of plaintiff-Sint. Jhamku, defendant No. 3-Shambhu and defendant No. 4- Shanker. The defendant No. 1-Pratapi, the petitioner herein, who is widow of elder brother of deceased Hazari sold one half portion of 6 bighas and 10 biwas land comprising Khasra No. 18 vide registered sale deed dated 24.1.2008 in favour of defendant No. 2-Smt. Shanti Bai. It is averred that the defendant No. 1, the petitioner herein, had no right whatsoever to sale the land inherited by the plaintiff, the respondent No. 1 herein, and his brothers Shambhu and Shanker, the defendants No. 3 and 4, he respondents No. 3 and 4 respectively herein. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed against the defendant No. 1, the petitioner herein and for partition of the land against her brothers, the defendants No. 3 and 4. The suit is being contested by the petitioner by filing a written statement thereto.

3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the subject matter of the suit is covered under Schedule III of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ("the Act") and therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred by virtue of provisions of Section 207 of the Act. It was contended that since according to the plaintiff, the defendant-petitioner has no right whatsoever in the land in question and therefore, the sale deed executed being not binding upon her, she is not required to obtain a decree for cancellation of sale deed and only the declaration regarding the sale deed being null and void would be sufficient, the relief which could always be granted by the Revenue Court.

4. The application has been rejected by the trial Court by the order impugned holding that the plaintiff has claimed the relief of cancellation of the sale deed which cannot be granted by the Revenue Court and therefore, in view of the composite cause of action, the suit cannot be treated to be barred by law. The Court observed that for the protection of their right and interest, the parties can always file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed which is null and void.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error of law while giving the finding that on the basis of composite cause of action, the civil Court can try the suit notwithstanding that the subject matter of the suit is covered under Schedule III of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ("the Act") and thus, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not barred by virtue of provisions of Section 207 of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that as laid down by this Court is the matter of "Asia v. Narain", 1963 RRD, 239 , even the suit which does not squarely falls within the four walls of the Third Schedule attached to the Act but which may partake the-nature thereof can be heard and determined by the Revenue Courts only. Learned counsel submitted that the true nature of the relief claimed in suit can be determined from the pith and substance of the pleadings and not from the form in which relief is framed. Learned counsel submitted that when a suit is filed by a tenant to cancel a document but the relief sought also amounting to declaration of his share in the land in terms of Section 88 and Item No. 5 of Schedule 3,