The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between void and voidable documents and their impact on the jurisdiction of revenue and civil courts in cases involving agricultural land.

JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, has been rejected.

2. The application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC was filed, inter alia, on the ground that the suit was barred under provisions of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Rajasthan Tenancy Act'), inasmuch as, the suit land was an agriculture land.

3. The application was contested by the respondents and the trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the suit seeking cancellation of sale deed as void did not fall within the 3rd Schedule of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and only civil court has the jurisdiction.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application by making the said observations as it is well settled that in case the subject matter of the suit is an agriculture land, merely because a sale deed has been executed, it is not necessary that the suit must be filed before the civil court. Once a party gets a declaration from the revenue court and the sale is found to be void, the declaration can be given by the revenue court as well.

5. Reliance was placed on judgment in the case of Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania : (2019) 3 SCC 692.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. It was submitted that the specific case of the respondents-plaintiffs is that the property in question is joint family property and the transfer was made without there being any power in this regard and, therefore, the transaction was voidable and in view of judgment of this Court in Hasti Cement Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sandeep Charan & Ors. : 2018 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 421, the said transaction was voidable only and once the transaction was voidable, the suit lies before the civil court only.

7. Reliance was placed on judgment in Mahendra Kumar & Ors. v. Smt. Maya Devi & Ors.: S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 182/2017, decided on 11.02.2021.

8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

9. The copy of the plaint filed alongwith the revision petition clearly indicates the case of the defendants-petitioners as under:-

(emphasis supplied)

10. The said nature averments and the implication of such averments have been considered by this Court in the case of Hasti Cement (supra), wherein it was laid down as under:-

"21. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it can be safely concluded that if the allegation in the plaint/substance of the allegations in the plaint allege the instrument to be void and no cancellation is required and without seeking such cancellation the relief of declaration pertaining to tenancy rights with regard to the agricultural land in question can be obtained by the plaintiff, only the revenue courts would have jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of the suit and consequently the jurisdiction of civil courts would be barred. However, if the allegations made in the plaint make out a case of document being voidable, relief of cancellation of such a voidable document can only be granted by civil court and irrespective of the fact that the instrument pertains to agricultural land, the suit would not be barred under Section 207 of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, the trial court in each case, where a issue in this regard is raised, based on the stage of the suit i.e. either based on the plaint averments or the evidence available on record would have to come to a conclusion as to whether the facts as alleged, if established or as established in a case where evidence has been led makes the instrument void or voidable and decide accordingly."

11. It was further laid down in relation to a case where the challenge laid to the transfer was on account of the fact that the land in question was joint family property