Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN BHANSALI, J.
Sua Devi – Appellant
Versus
Sharvan Ram and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 286 of 2014
Decided On : 25-01-2021
Civil Procedural Code, 1908 - Section 96 - Order VII Rule 11 –Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 - Section 207 - Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 - Section 62 - Appeal - Suits and applications cognizable by revenue court only - Suit was filed by appellant for declaration of rights, getting the sale deed declared as void, partition and permanent injunction – Held, as per plaint averments, the entire land which was comprised in sale deed under challenge stood converted from agriculture to residential purposes way back in year 2006 and suit was filed in the year 2014 it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of civil court qua said land was barred under the provisions of Section 207 of the Act, 1955 and as such rejection of the plaint by the trial court as barred by law cannot be sustained and matter deserves to be remanded back to trial court - As directions were given till final decision of the suit itself, in the circumstances of case, till the trial court decides the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC, the said order as clarified by order, shall remain in force - Under provisions of Section 62 of Court Fees Act, where plaint has been rejected by lower court is ordered to be received or where a suit is remanded in appeal for fresh decision by the lower court, the Court making the order or remanding the appeal may direct the refund to the appellant of the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of appeal - It is made clear that any observations made hereinbefore shall not be taken as expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of any contention raised in the plaint – Appeal allowed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The appeal challenges a judgment that rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which was exercised suo moto by the trial court before registering the suit. The appellate court found that the trial court had the jurisdiction to do so and that the rejection was justified because the suit was barred under the relevant land laws due to the land being converted from agricultural to residential purposes (!) (!) .
The plaintiff's case involves a claim to declare a sale deed as void, asserting that the land belonged to her father and was succeeded by her and other family members. The plaintiff alleges that the sale was executed without her consent and that her share was transferred improperly. She contends that the land was converted for residential use before the suit was filed, which affects the jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit (!) (!) .
The trial court’s exercise of suo moto power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before suit registration was upheld, and the appellate court clarified that such exercise is within the court’s jurisdiction and permissible at any stage before the conclusion of the trial (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the nature of the transaction—whether void or voidable—determines the jurisdiction of civil courts. Since the sale deed was considered voidable rather than void, civil courts have jurisdiction to decide on its validity and related declarations (!) (!) .
The court also considered that the suit's subject matter, being converted land, is no longer within the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue courts, especially after the land’s conversion to non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, the civil court’s jurisdiction to entertain the suit is affirmed, and the rejection of the plaint on jurisdictional grounds was set aside (!) (!) .
The appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court for a full hearing on the merits, allowing all issues to be raised and argued anew. The court also directed the refund of court fees paid on the appeal and clarified that the observations made should not be taken as an opinion on the case’s merits (!) (!) .
The interim orders regarding the preservation of the property and the stay on alienation were maintained until the trial court’s final decision, ensuring the status quo is preserved during the proceedings (!) (!) .
The court’s decision underscores that the maintainability of a suit involving land rights, especially after land conversion, depends on the specific allegations and the nature of the transaction, not solely on the land’s classification at the time of filing (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the procedural exercise of rejecting the plaint and remanding the case is proper and within judicial authority, and that the defendants are free to raise all defenses before the trial court (!) (!) .
Overall, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a comprehensive trial, with directions to proceed in accordance with law and to consider all issues raised by the parties (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Arun Bhansali, J.
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 to 18 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 ½ share to Gorakh Ram and ½ 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, ½ 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 to 18 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 w
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
