Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Arun Bhansali, J.
Smt. Sua Devi - Appellant
Versus
Shravanram & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 286/2014
Decided on : 25-01-2021
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - Order VII Rule 11 CPC - Rejection of Plaint - Maintainability of Suit - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Cancellation of Sale Deed - Void and Voidable Transactions - Conversion of Agricultural Land to Residential Land - Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of rights, getting the sale deed declared as void, partition, and permanent injunction. The land in question was agricultural land, which was later converted to residential land. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the suit was barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint without registering the suit. The court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to hear the suit as the land in question was converted to residential land before the suit was filed. The court also held that the sale deed was voidable and not void, and therefore, the civil court had jurisdiction to cancel the sale deed.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint without registering the suit? 2. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to hear the suit? 3. Whether the sale deed was void or voidable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint without registering the suit. The court held that the power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC can be exercised at any stage of the suit, but it should not be exercised in a mechanical manner. The court should consider the facts and circumstances of each case before rejecting the plaint. 2. The court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to hear the suit as the land in question was converted to residential land before the suit was filed. The court held that Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 does not bar the jurisdiction of the civil court to hear suits relating to converted land. 3. The court held that the sale deed was voidable and not void. The court held that the allegations made in the plaint, if proved, would make the transfer voidable and not void. Therefore, the civil court had jurisdiction to cancel the sale deed.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial court, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh decision.
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 96 CPC is directed against the judgment dated 20/10/2014 passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur (Metro), whereby, the plaint filed by the appellant has been rejected under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
2. The suit was filed by the appellant for declaration of rights, getting the sale deed declared as void, partition and permanent injunction. It was inter alia indicated in the plaint that Rawat Ram, who was resident of village Pal, Tehsil and District, Jodhpur has died, the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 15 are legal representatives of deceased Rawat Ram; an ancestral agricultural land was situated in Khasra No. 215 ad measuring 22 Bigha 5 Biswa at village Pal, which was recorded in the name of Rawat Ram in the revenue records. Rawat Ram had three sons - Moola Ram, Gorakh Ram and Pratap Ram @ Patta Ram. After death of Rawat Ram, the land comprised in Khasra No. 215 was recorded in the name of his two sons - Gorakh Ram and Pratap Ram, which was mutated on 17/5/1971.
3. The said mutation was challenged by Moola Ram s/o Rawat Ram by filing appeal, which appeal was allowed on 22/5/1995, whereby, the mutation dated 17/5/1971 was cancelled and the matter was remanded back to Gram Panchayat. Pursuant to the order dated 22/5/1995, on 4/6/1995 the land was mutated in the name of Moola Ram, Gorakh Ram and as Pratap Ram had died in the meanwhile, the mutation was accepted in favour of his son Mangilal and wife Smt. Manudi. It was alleged that though the plaintiff, who was daughter of deceased Pratap Ram and was his first class heir, her name was not recorded in the revenue record. It was also claimed that the plaintiff for the first time came to know about the same on 2/4/2012 when she obtained the certified copy of Jamabandi for obtaining loan. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the order dated 22/5/1995 before the S.D.O. on 9/4/2012, which appeal is still pending.
4. It was then claimed in the plaint that on obtaining documents and on an application filed by defendant nos. 16 tol8 for being impleaded as party in appeal against mutation entry dated 22/5/1995, in January, 2014 for the first time it came to the notice of the plaintiff that after the death of her father Pratap Ram and before recording of the land in the name of legal representatives of Pratap Ram, Mangilal s/o Pratap Ram and Gorakh Ram had transferred one third share ad measuring 7 Bigha 7 Biswa in Khasra No. 215 on 20/4/1995 to defendant nos. 16 to 18 without any right as at that time other legal representatives of Pratap Ram i.e. plaintiff and Pratap Ram's wife -Smt. Manudi were alive.
5. After the order was passed by the Gram Panchayat, Pal on 4/6/1995 regarding including the names of Mangilal and Smt. Manudi as legal representatives of Pratap Ram, on 29/5/1995 a correction deed was got executed including the name of Smt. Manudi in the sale deed dated 20/4/1995 executed in favour of defendant nos. 16 to 18. Whereafter, in a suit filed by Moola Ram s/o Rawat Ram seeking partition, by decree dated 5/9/2002 and order of Tehsildar dated 13/11/2002, the land of Khasra No. 215 was recorded in the name of Moola Ram ad measuring 7 Bigha 8 Biswa & 7 Biswansi as Khasra no.215/1, rest of the land ad measuring 14 Bigha 16 Biswa & 13 Biswansi was jointly recorded in the name of Gorakh Ram, Mangilal and Smt. Manudi with Vi share to Gorakh Ram and Vi share to Mangilal & Smt. Manudi. Further by mutation dated 21/2/2006 out of the land comprised in Khasra No.215 ad measuring 14 Bigha 16 Biswa & 13 Biswansi, Vi of the land was recorded in favour of Gorakh Ram and rest 7 Bigha 7 Biswa was recorded in the name of defendant nos. 16 to 18. The land mutated in favour of defendant nos.16 tol8 was got converted for residential purposes by order dated 16/6/2006 first in favour of UIT, Jodhpur and, thereafter, Pattas were got issued in favour of defendant nos. 16 to 18 on 18/2/2007.
6. Based on the above averments, it was submitted that th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
