Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
ARUN BHANSALI, J.
Hasti Cement Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep Charan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Revision No. 137 of 2015
Decided On : 07-03-2018
The legal document discusses the jurisdiction of civil courts versus revenue courts in cases involving agricultural land and related instruments. The core issue is whether a civil court has the authority to cancel or declare a void or voidable instrument, such as a sale deed, particularly when the land is agricultural and the dispute pertains to tenancy or ownership rights.
Key Points: - If the allegations in the suit suggest that the instrument is void ab initio (from the outset), then revenue courts generally have exclusive jurisdiction, and civil courts are barred from entertaining such suits (!) (!) . - Conversely, if the instrument is only voidable (not void ab initio), then civil courts may have jurisdiction to decide on its validity, including granting relief such as cancellation (!) (!) . - The nature of the relief sought and the substance of the allegations determine whether the suit is within the jurisdiction of civil courts or revenue courts (!) (!) . - Specific provisions of the relevant land and tenancy laws, especially those that restrict civil court jurisdiction in certain land disputes, are critical in this determination (!) (!) . - The distinction between seeking a declaration of rights and seeking cancellation of a document is significant; the latter generally requires a civil court’s intervention, especially when the document is alleged to be voidable rather than void (!) (!) . - The stage of the suit and the pleadings also influence whether civil courts can entertain such disputes, with the courts examining whether the allegations make the instrument void or voidable (!) (!) . - The legal principles emphasize that suits claiming rights over agricultural land, especially those based on tenancy or ownership, are often barred from civil court jurisdiction if the relief sought is primarily to declare the instrument void or voidable, and the matter falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue courts (!) (!) .
In summary, the jurisdictional question hinges on whether the instrument is alleged to be void ab initio or voidable. Civil courts have jurisdiction to hear suits that seek declarations or relief based on voidable instruments, whereas suits based on void instruments are generally barred and must be filed in revenue courts.
ARUN BHANSALI, J.
This revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 4/5/2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bilara, District Jodhpur, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected.
2. The respondent No. 1 filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 17/4/1991, declaration of ownership and possession against the petitioners and two others with the averments that in agricultural land ad measuring 240 Bigha 9 Biswa situated at village Jhoorli, Tehsil Bilara respondent no. 4 Satya Dev, his father had ¼ share and after partition, the land ad measuring 63 Bigha 16 Biswa came to his share. The land in question is ancestral joint Hindu family property and plaintiff is co-parcener with defendant no. 4 and has right in the land since birth. The land in question without any reason, necessity and basis was transferred in favour of defendant no. 1 (petitioner No. 1) by registered sale deed dated 16/4/1991 and got registered with the Sub Registrar, Bilara, which transfer was null and void against the interest of plaintiff and he is not bound by the said sale deed. It was claimed that the plaintiff and defendant no. 4 has ½ share in the property in question and to the extent the land has been sold beyond his right, he was not bound by the said transfer.
3. It was further claimed that under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (‘the Act’) he had right of preemption. Submissions were also made that at the time of transfer the plaintiff was minor and was unaware of the transfer.
4. The crux of the plaint as well as relief claimed therein reads as under:-
^^10- ;g gS fd okn dk vk/kkj oknh ds bl dFku ij vk/kfjr gS fd fookfnr d`f"k Hkwfe oknh o Áfroknh la[;k 4 ds la;qDr fgUnw vfoHkDr ifjokj dh vfoHkDr lEifr gSA Áfroknh la[;k 4 us fcuk fdlh dkj.k] vk/kkj o vko';drk ds mDr Hkwfe dk foØ; fnukad 16-4-1991 dks Áfroknh la[;k 1 ds uke ls Áfroknh la[;k 2 ds tfj;s fd;k gS tks oknh ds vk/ks gd fgLls vf/kdkj dh gn rd voS/k] ÁHkkoghu o 'kwU; gS dh ?kks"k.kk Áfroknh la[;k 1] 2 o 3 oknh o Áfroknh dh mDr la;qDr d`f"k Hkwfe ds fy, vtuch gSA o fgUnw mRrjkf/kdkjh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 22 ds vuqlkj oknh dks mDr Hkwfe dks [kjhn dk ofj;rk ls ÁFke vf/kdkj gksus ls oknh Áfroknhx.k ds fo:} Hkwfe ij Áos'k jksdus o [ksrh djus ls gsrw LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksus ds dFkuksa ij oknh dk ;g okn okLrs ?kks"k.kk ÁkIrh dCtk vkjkth 23 ch?kk 16 chLok o ÁkIrh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk vk/kfjr gSA 15- ;g gS fd Áys[k e; lwph bl okn i= ds lkFk ÁLrqr gSA vr% oknh dk uez fuosnu gS fd oknh dk e; okn O;; Lohdkj fd;k tkdj oknh ds gd esa o Áfroknhx.k ds fo:} fuEu fMØh ikfjr dh tkos %& ¼d½ ;g gS fd foØ; ys[k fnukad 16-4-1991 oknh ds vk/ks fgLls dh lEifr dh gn rd oknh ds fo:} ÁHkkoghu o 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;k tkosA ¼[k½ ;g gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj dk vfoHkDr Hkwfe gksuk ?kksf"kr dj Áfroknh la[;k 1 ls 4 dks foØ; ys[k fnukad 16-4-1991 ds vk/kkj ij Áos'k djus ls LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds tfj;s jksdk tkosaA ¼x½ ;g gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe esa ls [kljk la[;k 14] 17@3 o 17@4 jdck 23 ch?kk 16 chLok Hkwfe dk dCtk Áfroknh la[;k rhu ls oknh dks fnyk;k tkosaA**
5. The suit was filed on 3/11/1998 which was initially decreed on 1/2/2010, on 22/3/2013 the appeal filed by the petitioners was accepted and the matter was remanded back to the trial court, wherein, evidence was led by the plaintiff and matter was fixed for evidence of the defendants on 21/11/2014.
6. Whereafter, on 12/1/2015 the present application was filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC inter alia with the averments that as admittedly the subject matter of the suit was an agricultural land and in the relief declaration has been sought regarding the land being a joint Hindu family property, permanent injunction and possession and no relief has been sought for cancellation of sale deed, the suit was barred under the provisions of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (‘the Tenancy Act’), and till such time the plai
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
