ORDER :

1. The present regular appeal has been preferred against the order dated 08.03.2013 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Udaipur in Civil Original Case No.9/2012 whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by defendants No.2 to 10 has been allowed and as a consequence, the suit for declaration, correction in the revenue record, partition and permanent injunction as preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts are that the plaintiffs preferred a suit for the reliefs as abovementioned with a plea that the agricultural lands as mentioned in the plaint were the ancestral properties and being coparceners, they too have a share in the property. Therefore, they prayed for partition of the properties and further prayed for mutation in the revenue records and also for cancellation of the sale deeds and other transfer deeds as executed by the other coparceners in favour of the other defendants.

3. An application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was preferred by the defendants No.2 to 10 on two grounds: Firstly, that the reliefs as prayed for specifically pertained to agricultural lands and therefore, a suit before the Civil Court for the said reliefs could not be maintainable. Secondly, Kanna, the father of the plaintiffs, was alive on the date of filing of the suit and therefore, the suit for partition at the behest of the plaintiffs could not be maintained in view of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

4. A reply to the said application was preferred on behalf of the plaintiffs and after hearing all the parties, the Court below proceeded on to allow the application and as a consequence, dismissed the suit. The learned Court below, after considering all the earlier judgments on the point in issue, specifically concluded that as the plaintiffs claimed share in the undivided property being agricultural in nature, without a declaration qua the share of the plaintiffs being made by a revenue Court, no consequential relief for cancellation of any document could have been granted by the Civil Court.

5. The Court, while considering the settled case laws on the point in the matters of Vijay Singh v. Buddha; 2012 (2) DNJ Raj. 573 and Kamla Prasad v. Krishnakant; 2006-07 RRT (Suppl.) 394, specifically held that unless the relief of declaration is granted by the revenue Court qua the agricultural lands, the consequential relief for cancellation of any document qua the said land can not be granted by the Civil Court.

6. The Court further held that the suit for partition of the agricultural lands could also not have been entertained by the Civil Court. Further, the Court also held in favour of the defendants that the suit for partition at the behest of the plaintiffs could not be maintained in view of the specific provision of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

7. A perusal of the order impugned as well as the material available on record makes it clear that the mutation entries made in the revenue record in pursuance to the 14 documents executed between the years 2007 to 2011 are under challenge in the present suit. The said documents are in the nature of gift deed, sale deeds, will, release deed and settlement deed. Admittedly, all these documents pertain to agricultural lands. As considered by the Court below, Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, provides that cognizance of any suit or application qua which the relief could be granted by a revenue Court only, could not be taken by a Civil Court. As held in the case of Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania and Ors.; 2019 (3) SCC 692, it is the settled proposition of law that unless and until the rights qua an agricultural