Civil courts have jurisdiction over voidable sale deeds, even if they involve agricultural land, as per the allegations made in the plaint.

ORDER

1. The matter comes up for admission, however, looking to the nature of case and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal has been finally heard.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.9.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No.l, Sriganganagar, whereby, the application filed by the respondents - defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been allowed and the plaint filed by the appellants - plaintiffs has been rejected.

3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 18.8.2008, executed by their father - Krishanlal. It was inter alia alleged in the plaint that the property in question belonged to one Manglu Ram, who was survived by Sultan and Krishanlal - two sons, the plaintiffs are the sons of Krishanlal. Krishanlal by the impugned sale deed dated 18.8.2008, transferred the property in question to defendants - Banwari Lal, Smt. Meera Devi and Smt. Kaushalya Devi. It was alleged in the plaint that the property in question was that of joint family and that Krishanlal had transferred the property without there being any family necessity and, therefore, the sale deed dated 18.8.2008 be canceled.

4. The defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC inter alia with the submissions that as the subject-matter of the sale deed, of which cancellation is being sought, is an agricultural land and the plaintiffs have so far not got themselves declared as khatedars of the land in question, the suit was barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act of 1955') and, therefore, the plaint be rejected.

5. The trial court after hearing the parties, by its impugned order dated 17.9.2015, noticing the allegations made in the plaint, first observed that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief of cancellation of the sale deed and then observed that for getting their rights declared, they were required to file suit before the revenue court, get their names entered in the revenue records and thereafter approach the civil court seeking cancellation of the sale deed and based on its observations, accepted the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the plaint filed by the appellants, inasmuch as, the allegations made in the plaint make out a case of the sale deed being voidable and once the allegations are regarding the sale deed being voidable, even if the same pertained to an agricultural land, only the civil court would have jurisdiction and rejection of the plaint by the trial court on account of suit being barred under the provisions of Section 207 of the Act of 1955, is wholly incorrect and as such the same deserves to be set aside and matter be remanded back to the trial court.

7. Reliance was placed on judgment in Hasti Cement Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur & Anr. vs. Sandeep Charan & Ors.: 2018(2) DNJ (Raj.) 421.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the plaintiffs in the plaint do not make out a case regarding the sale deed being voidable. Submissions were made that the allegations made in the plaint are that the sale deed is void and as such even as per the judgment in the case of Hasti Cement (supra), only the revenue courts would have jurisdiction and, therefore, the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaint.

9. Reliance was placed on judgment in Geeta Devi & Ors. vs. Pushap Chand & Ors.: 2018(4) DNJ (Raj.) 1442.

10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the trial court and the material available on record.

11. From the averments as noticed by the trial court as well as the copy of plaint, the allegations made by the appellants as plaintiffs are quite specific, wherein, they have questioned the validity of the sale deed by claiming the property as joint family property and that their father - Kri