IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction of civil courts is upheld in cases involving allegations of fraud related to agricultural land, provided the instrument in question is deemed voidable rather than void ab initio.

JUDGMENT :

Madan Gopal Vyas, J.

The present civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC has been preferred by the petitioner-defendant against the order dated 08.03.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No.57/2016, whereby learned trial Court has rejected the application preferred by petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the extent of questioning the maintainability of suit before the learned civil Court.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent-plaintiff No.1 herein preferred a civil suit seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 15.10.1997 in favour of petitioner-defendant herein and respondent Nos.2 & 3 and also the sale-deed dated 03.08.2010 in respect of agricultural land measuring 52 Bighas 7 Biswa situated at old Khasra No.272/1 & 274 in village Nal Badi, Tehsil and District- Bikaner (hereinafter referred to ‘suit property’) in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi W/o. Amar Chand who is grand-mother of the plaintiff. In the suit, it was stated that the grand-mother of the plaintiff died in the year 1994, and therefore, she could not execute the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner-defendant and respondent Nos.2 & 3 in the year 1997. Therefore, it was submitted that the sale-deed of the year 1997 and the subsequent sale-deed of the year 2010 may be declared as void-ab-initio and injunction may be granted restraining defendants from alienating or selling the suit property.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC stating therein that since the plaintiff has filed suit seeking declaration of sale-deed as void and illegal and as the sale-deed has been executed in respect of agricultural land, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the revenue Court only has the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. In the application, it was also claimed that the suit was not properly valued and there was non-joinder of necessary party and therefore, the suit may be rejected. Learned trial Court vide its order dated 08.03.2016 rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC to the extent that it questioned the maintainability of the suit before the civil Court, therefore, aggrieved by the impugned order, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submits that as per Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and 3rd Schedule attached with the Act, it is crystal clear that only revenue Courts have jurisdiction to entertain declaratory suits with regard to agricultural land. It is submitted that if the reliefs claimed in the suit are seen, then it is clear that the plaintiff has prayed for declaring the sale-deed as void-ab-initio and, therefore, the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit lies with the revenue Court only. It is submitted that learned trial Court has wrongly held that the suit is maintainable before the civil Court on the ground that the main relief in the suit is for declaration of sale deed as void on grounds of fraud and the same can be determined and decided by the civil Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the relief claimed with regard to declaring the sale-deed as void and the commission of fraud may be one of the grounds seeking declaration but the main relief of declaration can only be granted by the revenue Court. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following judgments :-

(i) Sukh Lal & Ors. Vs. Devi Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1954 (Raj.) 170

(ii) Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2010 SC 2807

(iii) Hasti Cement Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sandeep Charan & Ors., S.B. Civil Revision No.137/2015, decided on 7.3.2018, Rajasthan High Court

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that the learned trial Court has rightly reje