The Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain suits related to khatedari rights, as such matters fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT

Goverdhan Bardhar, J. - The appellant plaintiffs have filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2017 whereby, the application filed by the defendant no.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and suit of the plaintiffs has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed, declaration and injunction against the respondent defendants stating therein that the land bearing Khasra No. 2840 area 23 bigha 3 biswa, Khasra NO. 2847 area 39 bigha 6 biswa total 62 bigha 9 biswa was in khatedari of their father Moti Ram. After death of Moti Ram, this land was wrongly entered in the name of Kheta Ram and Bhoora Ram. It was averred that on the basis of succession, though the plaintiffs being daughters of Moti Ram are also the successors alongwith Kheta Ram and Bhoora Ram, as such the sale deed of half share of land executed by Bhoora Ram in favour of defendant no.3 Smt. Sugni is illegal and same is liable to be cancelled. It was also prayed that the plaintiffs may be declared khatedar owner of the disputed land and injunction may be passed against the defendants not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs.

3. After service of summons of the suit, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed on behalf of defendant no.3 to the effect that the suit for cancellation of instrument can be filed by the parties to the sale deed or the person claiming under the same. The plaintiffs claimed 1/2 1/2 share in the disputed land and prayer for declaration and injunction which relief can only be granted by revenue court under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and Civil Court has no jurisdiction and prayed for rejection of the plaint.

4. The appellant also filed a revenue suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the court of Assistant Collector, Phalodi against Smt. Sugni and others. In that suit, the defendant Sugni filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the Assistant Collector, Phalodi allowed the application and rejected the suit vide order dated 30.09.2016 holding that the suit is barred by law. Learned trial court after hearing the arguments on application, allowed the application vide order dated 18.02.2017 and rejected the suit.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned trial court has failed to consider that the application filed by respondent defendant Smt. Sugni under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in the Revenue suit No. 15/2015 was allowed by the Assistant Collector holding the suit to be barred by law, therefore, the appellants cannot be deprived of taking recourse of law. The disputed land belongs to father of the plaintiffs and they are legal heirs of first category. It is argued that the main relief claimed in the suit is cancellation of sale deed and that relief can be granted by Civil Court, therefore, the suit cannot be rejected on this ground.

6. Per contra, counsel for the respondent defendant argued that the Civil Court cannot grant any relief to the plaintifs until the khatedari right of the plaintiff appellants are decided by the Revenue Court as the exclusive jurisdiction to declare the khatedari right vests in the Revenue Courts. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is justified and does not call for any interference.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

8. The provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC reads as under:-

11. Rejection of Plaint.- The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:-

(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action;

(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a