Hon'ble KOTHARI, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by the defendants-petitioners against the order dated 5.5.2003 of the learned trial Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Tibbi, District Hanumangarh in Civil Misc. Case No. 9/2002 (Smt. Kishni vs. Smt. Mohra & Ors.) in a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent Smt. Kishni for declaration of adoption deed dated 15.12.1960 and Will dated 3.6.1994 as void and cancellation of the same.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff (Smt. Kishni), real sister of Smt. Mohra, two daughters of deceased father Sh. Durja Ram and mother Smt. Mamkauri, filed the said suit in the civil court seeking cancellation of adoption deed dated 15.12.1960 purportedly executed by Smt. Mamkauri in favour of Deepa Ram @ Dilip S/o Taju Ram, husband of Smt. Mohra, the sister of the plaintiff-Kishni and also Will dated 3.6.1994 in favour of same beneficiary. The father, Durja Ram died in the year 1957 and after death of father, the plaintiff Smt. Kishni filed a revenue suit in the year 1978 for declaration under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, hereinafter referred to as Act of 1955') claiming her share to the extent of 1/3rd in the agriculture land, which upon death of father, devolved on the family. The said revenue suit filed in the year 1978 is said to have been decreed in favour of plaintiff up to the Board of Revenue. The another revenue suit being Revenue Suit No. 298/2001 (Smt. Kishni vs. Smt. Mohra) was filed in the revenue court on 18.12.2001 in the Court of S.D.O., Sangaria for seeking possession of the said 1/3rd share of the agriculture land, which in total measured about 65.13 Bigha of land. Besides these two revenue suits, the present civil suit being Civil Suit No. 9/2002 appears to have been filed by the plaintiff-Kishni on 1.7.2002 seeking to declare these two documents viz. adoption deed dated 15.12.1960 and Will dated 3.6.1994 in favour of defendant No. 3 Deepa Ram @ Dilip as void and cancel the same.

3. Upon the objections raised by the defendants that the said civil suit was not maintainable in the civil court but in accordance with Section 207 of the Act of 1955, the same could be filed only in the revenue court, the issues No. 6 and 8 were framed by the learned trial court as to jurisdiction and limitation, and by the impugned order, these two issues have been decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants. While the issue of limitation has not been decided and it has been held in the impugned order that the same would be decided at the time of final decision of the suit, the Issue No. 6, of jurisdiction, has been decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants and being aggrieved by the same, the defendants-petitioners have approached this Court by way of present revision petition.

4.While admitting the this revision petition, further proceedings in Civil Suit No. 9/2002 were stayed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, which stay order is still continuing.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. J.L. Purohit, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. N.R. Budania, relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jaswant Singh vs. Board of Revenue reported in 1984 RLW 573 submitted that since the plaintiff has treated these documents, adoption deed dated 15.12.1960 and Will dated 3.6.1994 as null & void and has claimed possession her share of the agriculture land, according to Section 207 of the Act of 1955 read with Third Schedule to the said Act, the said civil suit was maintainable in the Civil court but could be filed only in the revenue court; and therefore, the issue No. 6 has wrongly been decided in favour of plaintiff by the learned trial Court and the present revision deserves to be allowed.

6. Per contra, Mr. Hemant Choudhary and Mr. Vishal Jangid, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent also relied upon the very same judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh (supra), and also another Single Bench decision

Click Here to Read the rest of this document