Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
P.K. LOHRA, J.
Rajendra Kumbhat & Others – Petitioners
Vs.
Devi & Others – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 19 of 2014
Decided On : 13.3.2015
ORDER VII RULE 11 CPC - REJECTION OF PLAINT - CAUSE OF ACTION - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - SUIT BARRED BY LAW - LIMITATION - REVISION PETITION - SECTION 115 CPC:
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the order of the trial court rejecting their application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, which sought to dismiss the suit filed by the respondent for cancellation of sale deeds and perpetual injunction on the grounds that the suit was not disclosing cause of action and was barred by law.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that the suit was not barred by any law or limitation. It further held that the trial court had not exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, nor had it failed to exercise its jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action? 2. Whether the suit was barred by any law or limitation? 3. Whether the trial court had exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, or had failed to exercise its jurisdiction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action as it contained averments that the agricultural land, part of which was alienated to the petitioners, was joint Hindu family property of which the respondent's father was a Karta, and that the sale transactions were dubious and illegal without her concurrence. 2. The court held that the suit was not barred by any law or limitation as the jurisdiction of civil courts to try suits of a civil nature is wide and ouster of its jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred. It further held that the suit for cancellation of a registered instrument is not barred before a civil court within the four corners of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955. 3. The court held that the trial court had not exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, nor had it failed to exercise its jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition.
1. Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), petitioner-defendants have assailed the impugned order dated 7th of January 2014 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metropolitan (learned trial Court), whereby the learned trial Court has rejected their application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.
2. The facts apposite for the purpose of this revision petition are that first respondent-plaintiff instituted a civil suit before the learned trial Court against petitioners and proforma respondents for cancellation of sale-deeds and perpetual injunction. It is inter-alia averred in the plaint that Kewal Ram, father of respondent-plaintiff jointly owned land measuring 114 bighas and 17 biswas with his other siblings Shivji Ram, Basta Ram and Jawana Ram at village Doli, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur. By mutual agreement, all the brothers partitioned the entire land and in terms of partition, land measuring 41 bighas 10 biswas was entered in the name of joint Hindu Family property of Kewal Ram in the revenue records. The entire land, as per the version of respondent-plaintiff was mutated in the name of Kewal Ram as Karta of the family.
3. As projected in the suit, a revenue suit at the behest of proforma respondent Oma Ram was filed on 26th of May 2008 under Sections 53, 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 (for short, ‘Act of 1955’), wherein Kewal Ram, Mangilal, Mohan Ram and Smt. Sukhi Devi were arrayed as defendants. Along with the suit, a prayer for temporary injunction was also made by way of laying application under Section 212 of the Act of 1955. Respondent-plaintiff has specifically averred in the plaint that all the parties to the litigation entered into compromise just to deprive her from her share in the property and eventually the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. When this fact came to the fore, the respondent-plaintiff laid a revenue suit under Sections 53, 88 and 188 of the Act of 1955 for seeking her share in the agricultural land and also made endeavor for relief of temporary injunction under Section 212 of the Act of 1955.
4. In her application under Section 212 of the Act of 1955, interim injunction was granted by the Revenue Court, which remained in subsistence till its disposal. In the plaint a specific averment was made that despite subsistence of temporary injunction, her father Kewal Ram alienated part of the agricultural land alongwith fifth respondent to the present petitioners by executing two sale-deeds dated 01.01.2010 and 04.01.2010 respectively.
5. Categorizing sale transactions as illegal, respondent-plaintiff has pleaded that Kewal Ram has illegally alienated part of the land measuring 6 bighas 8 biswas in favour of fifth respondent Smt. Sukhi Devi, which was registered on 28th July 2008. Further, reiterating that the sale transactions between Kewal Ram and the petitioners were carried out during pendency of the revenue suit laid by the respondent-plaintiff. As per her positive assertion, Kewal Ram and the proforma respondents obtained her signature fraudulently for presenting application before the revenue Court for withdrawal of the suit and ultimately the revenue Court without passing any order on the application dismissed the suit on 30th of April 2012 in default as the lawyers were observing strike and not appearing in the Court. The respondent-plaintiff has further stated in the plaint that she made endeavor for restoration of suit by filing application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC but the same was also dismissed by the revenue Court. After dismissal of restoration application, an appeal is also filed by the respondent-plaintiff before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Jodhpur, which according to respondent-plaintiff is still pending adjudication. The entire edifice of the suit, as per the averments made in the plaint, was that the agricultural land was a Joint Hindu Fa
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
