Point of Law: Where khatedari rights are yet to be determined/declared, a party has to first approach Revenue Courts.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metro in Civil Original Case No.139/2022, whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as preferred by defendant No.2-Ranveer Singh @ Ranveer Kumar has been allowed as a consequence of which the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants for cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

2. Learned senior counsel Mr. Anand Purohit appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Court below has seriously erred in allowing the application as preferred by the defendant in so far as the Court has relied upon the defence as raised by the defendants and also the documents placed on record by them which could not have been considered while disposing of the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. Learned Senior counsel submitted that for adjudication of an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, the averments as made by the plaintiffs in the plaint can only be considered and nothing more than that. A bare perusal of the plaint makes it clear that the plaintiffs had a valid cause of action qua which the present suit had been preferred and the pleadings as made by the plaintiffs cannot be concluded to be bereft of any cause of action or held to be barred by any law. Therefore, none of the grounds as available under Order VII Rule 11, CPC for rejection of the plaint was made out in the present matter and the order impugned being wholly illegal and contrary to the provisions of law deserves to be set aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that a bare reading of the plaint as preferred by the plaintiffs makes it clear that firstly, no cause of action arose to the present plaintiffs; secondly, the suit was specifically barred by law that is, the law of limitation; thirdly, the suit in question pertained to an agricultural land and unless and until the plaintiffs got a declaration in their favour qua the said agricultural land from a Revenue Court, the present civil suit could not have been maintainable and fourthly, qua the relief as prayed for in the present suit, the revenue proceedings had already been taken up by the plaintiffs way back in the year 1982 and the present suit for the same reliefs cannot be held to be maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that admittedly, the land in question was an agricultural land qua which a suit before the Revenue Court had already been preferred by the plaintiffs and the same is pending consideration till date. He further submitted that the said suit was originally for possession but in the year 2021, an amendment has been sought and the relief of declaration as well as injunction has also been permitted to be added in the plaint. Therefore, unless and until the said suit is decided and it is declared by the Revenue Court that the plaintiff is entitled to the land in question, the present suit for cancellation of the sale-deed cannot be held to be maintainable. Learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:

1. Vijay Singh & Anr. vs. Buddha & Ors.; 2012(2) DNJ (Raj.) 573

2. Rukmani vs. Bhola & Ors.; 2012(4) RLW 3050 (Raj)

3. Pyarelal vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) thr. Natural Guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania & Ors.; 2019 3 SCC 692.

4. Bagaram & Ors. vs. Balkishan alias Balramkishan & Anr.; S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2117/2019 (decided on 16.05.2019)(Raj)

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

6. For adjudication of the present matter, a brief detail of the facts is essential.

As averred in the plaint, the land in dispute is an agricultural land comprising of three and a half bighas of khasra No.1217 of Gram Mandore. In the year 1943, a licence for manufacturing of liquor was granted to the contractor namely B.K. Illava by the State. For the said purposes, the land in question was required