ORDER :

1. The instant revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.7.2021 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Nagaur in Civil Original Case No. 30/2021 titled as ‘Lota Ram & Ors. vs. Ganesh Ram’, whereby application under Order 7 Rule 10 & 11 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendant – petitioner herein was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :-

3. Plaintiff – respondents herein Lota Ram and others filed a suit before learned Additional District Judge, Nagaur for cancellation of adoption deed with permanent injunction against Ganesh Ram defendant – petitioner stating therein that defendant Ganesh Ram was never adopted by Late Hema Ram. As per pedigree enumerated in the plaint, Hema Ram, Lota Ram, Kali and Lali are sons and two daughters of Sona Ram. Hema Ram was unmarried and lived with his brother Lota Ram. Ganesh Ram who was alleged to be adopted by Hema Ram was not living with Hema Ram, whereas, before the death of Hema Ram, he started living at Surat. Ganesh Ram was very clever and greedy person, whereas, the plaintiffs Lota Ram and others were illiterate and agriculturists. Hema Ram was head of the family and hence, after the death of Sona Ram, father of Lota Ram, Hema Ram, Kali and Lali, whole agricultural land as mentioned in Para – 2 of the plaint was entered in the sole name of Hema Ram, whereas, Hema Ram had only 1/4 share in the land of his father. As per averments made in the plaint, after the death of Hema Ram, all plaintiffs had became entitled for 1/3 share of the land. Since the land was entered inadvertently in the sole name of Hema Ram, hence, Lota Ram and others have filed suit for declaration of khatedari rights, partition and injunction against co-khatedars in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Khinwsar. Since, the plaintiffs were in the impression that after the death of Hema Ram, all land will devolve as per the provisions of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act in favour of plaintiffs, they have not filed any proceedings for correction of revenue records. In the plaint, it has been further averred that Hema Ram never expressed his desire to take any person in adoption. Ganesh Ram, who is biological son of Lota Ram, was very clever and greedy person. In the year 2016, he fraudulently prepared an adoption deed in his favour and managed to get signatures of Hema Ram and plaintiffs. Plaintiffs and Hema Ram were under the impression that this document is a will in favour of Lota Ram. Plaintiffs came to know about this forgery in April, 2021 after the death of Hema Ram when Ganesh Ram asserted his right as an adopted son of Hema Ram. Hence, the plaintiffs filed this suit for cancellation of adoption deed and seeking declaration to the effect that Ganesh Ram is not the adopted son of Late Hema Ram. They also sought injunction against any interference in the possession of plaintiffs over the disputed land.

4. After filing the written statement, an application was moved by defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 CPC on the ground that the suit is essentially a revenue suit with regard to agricultural land, hence, the same is not maintainable before the civil court. After hearing on the application, the learned trial court rejected the same vide impugned order dated 27.7.2021 against which present revision petition has been preferred.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner – defendant in the original suit submits that essentially the plaintiffs are claiming right in land showing it to be a joint holding. As per plaint, Hema Ram got the property through partition. Relying on the following judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless declaration with regard to land in question is made, no suit for cancellation of adoption deed is maintainable. Learned trial court has grossly erred in interpreting the provisions of law and has acted beyond its jurisdiction while p