Hon'ble AGARWAL, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 17.1.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Beawar (District Ajmer) in Civil Suit No.71/2010 whereby by coming to a conclusion that the suit is exclusively triable by a revenue court, he allowed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the defendant-respondents and in consequence thereof dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants.

2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed, permanent and mandatory injunction before the Court below with the averments that the land in dispute, an agricultural land, originally was in the khatedari of one Shri Lumba and his brother-Shri Ladu both son of Shri Azima and Shri Ladu died issue-less some time in the year 1958 and whole of the land devolved on defendant-respondent-Shri Buddha and Shri Mangla predecessor in title of defendant-respondents No.2 to 7 and both of them i.e. Shri Buddha and Mangla jointly sold the land in dispute by way of a registered sale deed dated 3.11.1959 to the father of appellants; Shri Nizam and after the death of Shri Nizam, it devolved on the appellants. It was alleged that whole of the land in dispute is in the khatedari of appellants and they alone are khatedar-tenant of it. It was further submitted that the respondents No.1 to 7 without any legal authority got mutation of the land in dispute in their name on 1.2.2008 by wrongly alleging that Shri Ladu died in the year 2004 and after his death one-half share of the land devolved upon them. It was further averred in the plaint that the respondents No.1 to 7 without any legal authority sold one-half share of the land in dispute by way of a registered sale deed dated 18.5.2010 to defendant-respondent No.8-Shri Suwa. It was also averred by the appellants that they are in continuous possession of the land in dispute for last fifty years and by adverse possession also they have acquired khatedari rights in it. It was prayed by the appellants that the sale deed dated 18.5.2010 may be cancelled as it is illegal, void and ineffective against their rights. It was also prayed that it may be declared that under the sale deed no rights have accrued to defendant-respondent No.8 and he has no right to get his name entered in revenue record as khatedar-tenant on the basis of the sale deed and it may also be declared that the entries made in the revenue record in the name of respondent No.1 to 7 are illegal, ineffective and void to the rights of appellants. It was further prayed that the respondents may be restrained by permanent injunction of the effect that they do not interfere in the peaceful possession of the appellants in the land and they refrain from selling or otherwise transferring the land in dispute to any other person. It was also prayed that it may be declared that the appellants are in continuous and rightful possession of land in dispute for last 50 years and the land is in their adverse possession. Alongwith the plaint some documents were also filed by the appellants.

3. The respondents filed a joint written statement and most of the averments made in the plaint were denied. They also filed some documents alongwith the written statement.

4. The respondents filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC mainly alleging therein that the suit filed by the appellants is barred by law as it is not entertainable by a Civil Court and it can be considered only by a revenue court. It was stated in the application that apart from relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 18.5.2010, the appellants have also prayed that the entries made in the revenue record in the name of respondents No.1 to 7 may be declared illegal, void and ineffective to the extent of appellants' rights and such relief can be granted only by a revenue court. A reply to the appli-cation was filed by the appellants and the learned court below after hearing the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document