ARUN BHANSALI, J.

1. This revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 6/10/2016 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been rejected.

2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration and possession inter alia with the averments that agriculture land belonging to Smt. Geeta, Smt. Leela, Kushal and Jeet comprised in Khasra No.805 ad measuring 27 Bigha 14 Biswa is situated at Kankani. It was claimed that Smt. Geeta and Smt. Leela on their behalf and on behalf of minor children entered into an agreement to sale dated 1/11/2006 with the plaintiff regarding which part consideration was paid. The defendants Smt. Geeta and Smt. Leela executed a power of attorney in favour of Harshvardhan Sancheti. On 14/11/2007, after payment of balance consideration of Rs. 28,70,000/- to Harshvardhan, the property was transferred to the plaintiff and sale deed in this regard was registered and possession was handed over. It was then claimed in the plaint that on 22/11/2007 the plaintiff came to know that defendants, Smt. Geeta and Smt. Leela have transferred the suit property to defendant nos. 5 and 6 i.e. Mahendra Singh and Gajendra Singh vide sale deed dated 17/11/2007. It was claimed that the transfer was void and same could not have been transferred by the defendants no.1 and 2 in favour of defendants no.5 and 6. Based on the said submissions, relief was claimed in the plaint seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 17/11/2007 and possession of the suit property.

3. The petitioners filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC inter alia indicating that as the suit pertains to agriculture land, the same was barred under the provisions of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act of 1955') and as such the plaint was liable to be rejected.

4. The application was contested by the plaintiff with the submissions that the suit of the plaintiff was based on the provisions of Contract Act and the only submission made was that the property was already transferred on 14/11/2007, therefore, subsequent transfer made on 17/11/2007 was void.

5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that as the tenancy rights have not been disputed in the suit and no declaration in this regard has been sought, only relief pertains to cancellation of registered sale deed and the relief of possession was an ancillary relief to cancellation, the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was liable to be rejected.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court committed grave error in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs. It was submitted that a bare perusal of the plaint would indicate that the only case of the plaintiff was that the sale deed dated 17/1/2007 was void and that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the land in question in view of the transfer dated 14/11/2007 executed by the power of attorney holder of the defendants no. 1 to 4 in his favour and once the plea raised in the suit pertains to the document in question being void, the suit would be maintainable before the revenue courts only and as the plaint is barred under Section 207 of the Act of 1955, the same was liable to be rejected under provisions of Order VII Rule 11 (b) CPC.

7. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Hasti Cement Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sandeep Charan & Ors., (2018) 1 RajLW 826.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the substance of the plaint only is required to be examined and once the real contest only pertains to seeking cancellation of sale deed, the suit was maintainable before the civil court.

9. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Durgadan vs. Devidan, (1974) RajLW 296.

10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have peru