Mr. Arun Bhansali, J.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 19/3/2016 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. has been rejected.

2. The respondents Ram Ratan & Heera Ram filed a suit for declaration of the registered sale deed dated 27/11/2013 as illegal, void and ineffective and also for declaration of revenue entries, partition, conversion order dated 5/2/2014 as illegal, void and ineffective, dispossession, mandatory & perpetual injunction against the petitioners.

3. The suit was filed with the averments that agricultural land ad measuring 18.83 hectares comprised in various khasra situated at Koselav was in joint khatedari of plaintiffs and defendant nos. 5 to 7. The mother of plaintiff No.1 and his three brothers have 1/24th share in the joint khatedari and, therefore, the plaintiff no.1 has 1/72th share and plaintiff no.2 has 1/24th share in the joint tenancy & among the tenants the land has not been partitioned by metes and bounds and same was indicated as joint khatedari.

4. The defendant nos. 5, 6 and 7 have 1/36th share each and in absence of partition, none of the joint khatedars has any right to sell specific portion of the land. Based on the said averments, and the averment that the sale deed dated 27/11/2013 executed by defendant no. 5 to 7 was contrary to Section 41, 211, 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act and the Land Record Rules, following reliefs were sought :

14- fd izkFkZuk oknhx.k fuEu gS%&

v & fd iathc) fodz; foys[k fnukad 27-11-2013] ukekUrjdj.k la[;k 1883 Lohd`fr fnukad 31-12-2013] tks foHkktu gsrq ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 08-01-2014] ukekUrjdj.k la[;k 1885 Lohd`fr fnukad 10-01-2014] fnukad 05-02-2014 dks ikfjr laifjorZu vkns'k dzekad jkt@2014@157&161] jkt@2014@163&167] jkt@2014@169& 173 ,oa mDr vk/kkjksa ij Hkw&vf/kdkj vfHkys[kksa esa fd;s x;s bUnzktksa dks dkuwuu voS/k] 'kwU; ,oa fu"izHkkoh ?kksf"kr djus dh ?kks"k.kk dh vkKkfIr cgd oknhx.k fo:) izfroknhx.k tkjh QjekosaA

[k & fd oknxzLr Hkwfe ls izfroknhx.k dks csn[ky djus] dPpk iDdk fuekZ.k dk;Z] lqj{kk nhokj bR;knh dks vkns'kkRed fu"ks/kkKk ds tfj;s /oLr djus gsrq vkns'kkRed fu"ks/kkKk dh vkKfIr cgd oknhx.k fo:) izfroknhx.k tkjh QjekosaA

x & fd oknxzLr Hkwfe ls izfroknhx.k dks csn[ky djus ,oa izfroknhx.k }kjk oknxzLr Hkwfe ij voS/k rkSj ls fd;s x;s& fd;s tk jgs dPps iDds fuekZ.k ds <+kapk (Structure), lqj{kk nhokj dks /oLr dj gVk;s tkus ds ckn izfroknhx.k iathc) fodz; fnukad 27-11-2013 laifjorZu vkns'kksa ds vk/kkj ij iqu% dCtk ugha djs] fdlh Hkw&Hkkx dk cSpku gLrkUrj.k ugha djsa] oknhx.k ,oa vU; lg [kkrsnkjksa dks fufgr lg[kkrsnkjh gd gdwdksa esa uktk;t gjdrksa ds }kjk gLr{ksi ugha djsa] u gh vU; fdlh ls djkos ftl gsrq 'kk'or dky ds fy, fu"ks/kkRed O;kns'k gsrq LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dh vkKfIr cgd oknhx.k fo:) izfroknhx.k tkjh QjekosaA

?k & fd vkKfIr dh ikyuk esa Hkw&vf/kdkj esa iathc) fodz; foys[k fnukad 27-11-2013 ls iwoZ esa fLFkr bUnzktksa dh 'kkafr bUnzkt fd;s tkus gsrq ,oa mi iath;d] leqsjiqj dh vfHkj{kk esa fLFkr iathc) fodz; foys[k fnukad 27-11-2013 ij vkKfIr dk bUnzkt yky L;kgh ls vafdr fd;s tkus gsrq vkns'k tkjh QjekosaA

M & fd okn O;; oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA

; & fd vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k tks oknhx.k ds fgrdj gks iznRr djkosA

5. After the summons of the suit were served on the defendants, the defendants filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. inter alia praying therein that the suit has been instituted for declaration of sale deed dated 27/11/2013 as null and void in which the consideration for the sale has been shown to be Rs. 7,25,000/- and, therefore, court fee paid is insufficient and, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed, besides the fact that the court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction and it was further claimed that as the relief claimed pertains to agricultural land, the suit was triable by Revenue Court and the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction and, there