The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the allegations in the plaint make a case of the document being voidable, only the civil court would have jurisdiction to deal with the said aspect, and the execution of documents surrounded by suspicious circumstances cannot be examined by the revenue courts.

JUDGMENT

1. These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the orders dated 07.07.2017 passed by the trial court, whereby, the applications filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 CPC have been rejected.

2. The suits were filed by the plaintiffs-respondents No.1 & 2 seeking declaration in relation to the gift deed dated 18.11.2014 in Civil Original Suit No.48/2016 and Will dated 18.11.2014 in Civil Original Suit No.47/2016 executed by Sahab Ram, father of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 4 were void and ineffective against the plaintiffs and that perpetual injunction against the defendants from dealing with the properties in question.

3. It was inter alia indicated in the suit that the suit properties were joint family properties and deceased Sahab Ram inter alia had no right to execute the gift deed and Will qua the properties in question and, therefore, the same were liable to be declared as void.

4. The present applications were filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC inter alia with the submissions that the suits were barred under provisions of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act'), inasmuch as a suit seeking declaration qua agricultural land can be filed under Section 88 of the Act and, therefore, the plaint was liable to be rejected.

5. The applications were contested by the plaintiffs inter alia with the submissions that the main relief can only be granted by the civil court and as such the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was liable to be rejected.

6. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that as the main relief sought pertains to the cancellation of the Will dated 18.11.2014 and the gift deed dated 18.11.2014, the said relief can only be granted by the civil court and as the rest of the reliefs were collateral in nature, the same cannot be granted by the revenue court and consequently, rejected the applications.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 (d) CPC, inasmuch as, the suits admittedly pertain to agricultural land and once the declaration has been sought qua agricultural land, the revenue courts are competent to grant such relief under Section 88 of the Act and in view thereof, under provisions of Sections 207 & 256 of the Act, the suit was barred.

8. Reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) & Ors.: 2019 DNJSC 115.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the case of the respondents-plaintiffs was specific that the suit properties were joint family property and the father of the plaintiffs -Sahab Ram, had no right to deal with the properties, whereby, he has executed Will and gift deed in relation to the entire property, as the plaintiffs also had share in the said property.

10. Submissions were made that it was the case of the plaintiffs that the said documents were voidable and as such the suit for getting the declaration under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 could only lie before the civil court.

11. Reliance was placed on Hasti Cement Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sandeep Charan & Ors.: 2018 (2) DNJ (Raj.)421.

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

13. It would be appropriate to quote the case of the plaintiffs, which is inter alia reflected in para 7 of Civil Original Suit No.47/2016, which reads as under:-

Para - 9 of Civil Original Suit No.48/2016 reads as under:-

14. Besides the above, the very execution of both the documents on account of the physical condition of the executant has also been questioned.

15. This Court in the case of Hasti Cement (supra), while dealing with the maintainability of suits before civil court in relation to agricultural land, inter alia came to the following conclusion :-

"21. From what has bee