The main legal principle established is that the civil court has jurisdiction to decide on the genuineness of a relinquish deed and consequential reliefs, even in cases related to agricultural land, if the challenge is against a voidable document.

JUDGMENT

Rameshwar Vyas, J. - The instant civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the defendants-petitioners against the Order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No. 05/2022 titled as "Smt. Seeta v. Polaram & Ors.", whereby the application under Order VII, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. filed by the defendants-petitioners has been rejected.

2. The facts of the case in short are that the plaintiff-Seeta (respondent No. 1 herein) filed the civil suit for cancellation of relinquish deed executed in favour of the defendants on the ground that on said relinquish deed, signature of the plaintiff was obtained by the defendants by playing fraud. She came to know about fraud when she obtained certified copies of the revenue record. The plaintiff further averred that on the basis of so-called relinquish deed, defendants may transfer her share in the agricultural land. Hence, she has prayed to declare disputed relinquish deed as null and void with consequential relief not to transfer share of the plaintiff in the agricultural land in question. During pendency of the suit, defendants (petitioners herein) filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. on the ground that since relinquish deed relates to agricultural land, hence, only revenue court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. After hearing the parties, the trial court vide Order dated 11.04.2022 has dismissed the said application with the observation that plaintiff has not sought declaration of her khatedari rights; she has filed the suit for declaring disputed relinquish deed dated 08.07.2020 alleged to be prepared fraudulently by the defendants, as null and void. The above relief cannot be granted by the revenue court. Aggrieved with the above order, this revision petition has been filed by the defendants-petitioners before this Court.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying on the judgments of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Smt. Geeta Devi and others v. Pushap Chand and others reported in 2018 (4) DNJ 1442 and Hasti Cement Pvt. Ltd. v. Sandeen Charan & Ors. reported in (2018) 1 RLW 826, submits that alleged relinquish deed is void ab initio and the suit is for declaring share of the plaintiff in the agricultural land, which relief can only be granted by the revenue court. He submits that the trial court has erred in rejecting the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioners.

5. After going through the plaint filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, it reveals that the main challenge of the plaintiff is against relinquish deed. As per averments in the suit, on relinquish deed in dispute, signature of the plaintiff was obtained by the defendants by playing fraud saying that this document pertains to application seeking agricultural credit from the bank. The suit is not for declaring khatedari rights of the plaintiff in the agricultural land.

6. This Court in the case of Hasti Cement Pvt. Ltd. (supra), as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, has held as under:-

"From what has been noticed hereinabove, 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 court 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 irr