Prakash Gupta, J.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track No.2), Jaipur District, Jaipur rejecting an application under Order 7, Rule 11 filed by the defendants in Civil Suit No.200/2007 Kamlesh Jain v. Vikram Golechha & Others.

2. The brief facts relevant for the present purpose are that the aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiff Shri Kamlesh Jain with the averments that he had purchased a piece of agricultural land admeasuring 13 Bighas from Smt. Moti Devi w/o Shri Mohan Lal Jain and Smt. Urmila w/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Chittora in 1978 through a registered sale deed dated 07.06.1978. These two ladies had purchased the aforesaid land from Shri Jagdish Narayan Pareek s/o Shri Mahadev Prasad Pareek in 1975 through a registered sale deed dated 08.08.1975. He has been in possession of the said land since 1978 and has also been paying land revenue since then but he could not be able to mutate his name in the revenue authorities. On 25.02.2006, Shri Jagdish Narayan Pareek dishonestly and with intent to cause fraud resold the aforesaid 13 Bigha land to one Smt. Shanti Devi Sharma w/o Shri Shiv Dayal Sharma and executed a fictitious sale deed on 01.03.2006. Smt. Santi Devi Sharma further sold the said land to M/s Siyaram Estate Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur on 28.05.2006 and on the basis of these fraudulent and fictitious sale deeds, revenue authority has also mutated the land in the revenue records in the name of M/s Siyaran Estate Pvt. Ltd. In this factual background, he sought the following three relief’s:-

(i) a declaration be granted in his favour to the effect that he is the owner of the said 13 Bigha land and all the three sale deeds dated 01.03.2006, 29.05.2006 and 12/14.09.2006 executed subsequently by Shri Jagdish Narayan Pareek and Smt. Moti Devi Sharma are null and void as against his interest in the said land;

(ii) the defendants No.1 to 4 be restrained through a permanent injunction from interfering in the use and enjoyment of the aforesaid land and creating any third party interest in the whole parcel of the and admeasuring 12.51 hectare of which the said 13 Bigha land is a part;

(iii) direction may be issued to cancel any changes made in the revenue records made at the behest of the defendants during the years 2006 and 2007.

3. In response to the aforesaid suit, two separate applications one by defendant No.1 and 2 and another by defendant No.3 and 4-were filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC contending that as per section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the suit is maintainable only in the revenue court and the jurisdiction of the civil suit is barred, therefore the suit is liable to be rejected.

4. After hearing the rival contentions, the learned court below concluded that in this matter prima facie the court has to see whether the sale deed dated 07.06.1978 is in existence and it has validly been executed and whether or not the plaintiff has got right in the disputed property through this instrument. In these circumstances wherein the question of existence and execution of a sale deed is involved, the civil court has jurisdiction and therefore, it cannot be said that revenue court has jurisdiction. On the aforesaid reasoning the learned court below rejected the application. Hence, this revision petition.

5. It is contended on behalf of the defendant-petitioner that the Plaintiff-respondent No.1 has filed the suit apparently for the declaration of his title over agriculture land and for direction for correction of entries in the revenue record and not for cancellation of the sale deeds executed in favour of defendant No.1, 2 and 3. The relief sought in the suit are cognisable by the revenue courts and under section 207 read with third schedule of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, jurisdiction of civil court is barred for the sit regarding agricultural land in the which relief of declaration, injunction and for correction of entries in revenu