A civil Court has jurisdiction to try suits for cancellation of sale-deeds and perpetual injunction relating to agricultural land, as the main relief sought is cancellation of sale-deeds, which is a civil matter, and the injunctory relief is ancillary to the main relief.

ORDER :

Pratap Krishna Lohra, J.

1. Petitioner-defendants by these twin revision petitions have challenged two orders of even date, in different civil suits for cancellation of sale-deeds and perpetual injunction, passed by Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 5, Udaipur (for short, 'learned Court below'). As the lis involved and the plaintiff-respondents in both these revision petitions are common, both are heard together and disposed of by this single order.

2. The facts, in brief, are that plaintiff-respondents filed two civil suits for cancellation of sale-deeds and perpetual injunction against both the petitioner-defendants. In the civil suit, filed against petitioner Ms. Bhagwati Kanwar, besides perpetual injunction cancellation of sale-deed dated 1st of February, 2007 is sought precisely on the ground that the vendor had no right, title or interest to execute the sale-deed, whereas in civil suit filed against petitioner Smt. Shanker Kanwar, cancellation of sale-deed dated 12th of July 2007 is prayed besides perpetual injunction on identical grounds. In both the suits, along with the plaints, respondent-plaintiffs also filed application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for temporary injunction. On behalf of petitioners, taking shelter of clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC separate applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC were filed in both the suits. It is, inter alia, averred in the applications that the subject-matter of both the suits relate to agricultural land and the relief prayed for is declaratory as well as perpetual injunction, therefore, suits are barred by law and such suits can only be tried by revenue Courts. In the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, petitioners urged that a suit of such nature is maintainable only before the revenue Court under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "Act") and suit before a civil Court is barred by law by virtue of Section 256 of the Act.

3. Both the respondent-plaintiffs contested the applications submitted on behalf the petitioners.

4. Learned Court below heard arguments on the applications for temporary injunction as well as under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC simultaneously and by two different orders of even date allowed the applications for temporary injunction but rejected applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

5. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel, Mr. R.K. Thanvi that the learned Court below has committed illegality and material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction while passing the impugned orders. Mr. Thanvi would urge that, essentially in respect of agricultural land, injunctory relief can be granted by the revenue Court and looking to the nature of the relief pertaining to sale-deed, which is for declaration, suit as a whole is barred by law but this aspect has not at all been examined by the learned Court below. Mr. Thanvi would contend that the learned Court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in it while rejecting the applications. In support his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on following judgments:

Ashok Chouhan Vs. Smt. Amri Bai & Anr. [2010 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 776

Mohanlal Vs. Ratna [AIR 1971 Raj. 164]

Alternatively, Mr. Thanvi has also contended that even if it is presumed that in both the suits cancellation of sale-deed is prayed then too plaints vis-à-vis relief for perpetual injunction are liable to be thwarted as barred by Section 256 of the Act.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that essentially in both the suits respondent-plaintiffs have prayed for cancellation of sale-deeds of different dates and for such relief, civil Court is the only appropriate forum. Learned counsel has further submitted that for cancellation of a registered instrument, the revenue courts have no jurisdiction. It is also argued by learned counsel that the learned Court below, while repudiating applications of the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has not committed any jurisdictional err