JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.11.2013 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC has been rejected.

2. The respondent No.1 daughter of Prem Singh filed a suit for cancellation of sale deeds and permanent injunction inter-alia seeking declaration that document Nos. 1534 & 1533 dated 15.09.1979 to the extent of her half share be declared void and the land transferred by the documents be ordered to be recorded in her name in the revenue records.

3. It was inter-alia claimed in the plaint that agricultural land ad measuring 2486 Bigha 10 Biswa is situated in Village Kaparda, Tehsil Biiara, District Jodhpur. In the said land the plaintiff and defendant No.20 i.e. Praveen Kumar, her brother have 2/16 share ad measuring 336 Bigha 4 Biswa, they are in possession as co-tenant and the land has not been partitioned so far. The land in question was recorded in the name of plaintiff and her brother as per their share through guardian defendant No. 19 Smt. Pawan Kanwar, their mother. The plaintiff and defendant No.20 were minors and defendant No.4 Chain Singh, who is real bother of plaintiff's father, showing himself as power of attorney holder of plaintiff and defendant No. 19 Pawan Kanwar as guardian of defendant No.20, fraudulently sold 75 Bigha land on 15.04.1979 through document No. 1534 to defendant Nos. l to 3 and 50 Bigha land to defendant Nos.5 & 6 through document No. 1533 i.e. in all 125 Bigha land was fraudulently transferred with an intention to misappropriate plaintiff's land. It was alleged that on the date when the documents were executed, the plaintiff and her brother were minors and the land was recorded in their name through guardian; their mother Pawan Kanwar did not execute the power of attorney in favour of the defendant No.4 and there was neither necessity for transferring the land in question nor the same was for the benefit of the minors and the land in question was transferred by the defendant No.4 under a planned fraud by claiming himself to be a power of attorney holder of plaintiff and defendant No.20.

4. Further averments were made seeking to indicate as to how the plaintiff came to know about the events which led to transfer of the land in question. It was claimed that no power of attorney was ever executed and no consideration against the land was received by any of the members of family and therefore, the sale deeds in question were null and void and does not create any right in favour of the defendants-transferees. The land in question has further been transferred by the transferees to the other defendants and the same have also been got recorded in the revenue records. Based on the above averments, the relief as indicated hereinbefore was claimed.

5. The petitioners-subsequent transferees, filed application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC seeking rejection of the plaint inter alia with the averments that already a revenue suit filed by the plaintiff with her mother and brother was under consideration before the competent revenue court and on account of the said suit already pending, the civil court does not have jurisdiction to decide the suit and therefore, the plaint deserves to be rejected.

6. Reply to the application was filed with the submissions that as the plaintiff has claimed cancellation of the said deeds, the suit was maintainable.

7. The trial court, after hearing the parties, by the impugned came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has sought declaration of the sale deeds to the extent of her share as void and the jurisdiction to declare a sale deed pertaining to the revenue land as void is vested in the civil court and therefore, the suit was maintainable and consequently rejected the application.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court committed grave error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. It is submitted that a