Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Birendra Kumar, J.
Magan Lal Bhati S/o Mangi Lal Bhati @ Mana Bhati – Appellant
Versus
Rameshwar Lal Bhati S/o Mangi Lal Bhati @ Mana Bhati – Respondent
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 326/2022
Decided On : 25-03-2025
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rajasthan Tenancy Act - Section 207 - Rejection of plaint - Suit for partition of property by plaintiff against brother rejected by trial court on grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties and jurisdiction issues, citing agricultural status of land - Court found that the actual use of land had changed to residential, and the plaint disclosed a triable cause of action despite technicalities. (Paras 9, 14, 17, 20)
(B) Jurisdiction of Revenue Court - The trial court erred in assuming that jurisdiction was barred due to agricultural status of land as per revenue records, disregarding the admission of parties regarding the changed use of land. (Paras 8, 14, 19)
(C) Cause of action - The court emphasized that the plaint must be read in its entirety to determine if it discloses a cause of action, and not be rejected on mere technicalities. (Paras 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought partition of inherited land recorded as agricultural, while the defendant admitted the land's residential use. The trial court rejected the plaint, asserting that jurisdiction lay with the Revenue Court.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the actual nature of the land had changed and the plaint disclosed a triable cause of action, thus reversing the trial court's decision.
Issues: The main issues were whether the suit was maintainable before the Civil Court and the implications of the agricultural status of the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the actual use of the land as residential, despite its agricultural record, warranted the suit's consideration in the Civil Court, highlighting the need to prioritize substance over form.
Result: The impugned order is set aside and the suit restored to its original file.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The suit for partition of land recorded as agricultural can be entertained by a Civil Court if there is substantial evidence that the actual use of the land has changed to residential, regardless of the recorded status (!) (!) .
The actual nature of the land, such as its use for residential purposes, is a critical factor, and the mere recording of the land as agricultural in revenue records does not bar the Civil Court from exercising jurisdiction once the use has shifted (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the determination of whether a suit discloses a cause of action should be based on the entire plaint, considering all averments and documents, rather than technicalities alone (!) (!) .
The power to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is to be exercised only if the plaint does not disclose a cause of action, is frivolous, or is vexatious, and not merely based on technicalities such as the agricultural status of the land (!) (!) .
The Court highlighted that the actual use and the admission of the parties regarding the change in land use are significant and should influence the jurisdictional assessment (!) (!) .
Technicalities, such as the revenue record still listing the land as agricultural, should not prevent the Civil Court from considering the suit when there is clear evidence of a change in land use and the suit's cause of action (!) (!) .
The Court directed that the impugned order rejecting the plaint be set aside and the case restored to its original file for an expedited trial, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over procedural technicalities (!) .
The Court clarified that issues such as non-joinder of necessary parties or other procedural objections should be considered during the trial and do not warrant dismissing the suit at the initial stage (!) (!) .
The judgment underscores the principle that the substance of the case and the facts as admitted or established by parties take precedence over formal record entries when determining jurisdiction and maintainability (!) (!) .
Overall, the decision reinforces that courts should prioritize the actual facts and justice over strict adherence to procedural formalities, especially when the change in land use is admitted by the parties involved.
JUDGMENT :
BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. This appeal is against order and decree dated 18.07.2022 passed in Civil Original Suit No.23/2020, whereby the learned trial Judge rejected the plaint in exercise of power under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. on the prayer of the defendant-respondent.
3. The plaintiff-appellant had brought the said suit for partition of his half share in the suit property bearing Khasra No.488, area 15 Biswa, situated near Kesardesar Well in Bikaner. The sole respondent is full brother of the appellant. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that the aforesaid land is recorded in the revenue records in the name of father of the parties namely Mangi Lal Bhati @ Mana Bhati. Initially, the land was being used for growing vegetables, however gradually population of Bikaner increased and thereafter, the ancestors constructed house on the aforesaid Khasra, some of the portion is still vacant. The boundary of the land is referred as follows : -
| North | South | East | West |
| Baadi Munni Lal | Baadi Harnarayan Mali and Rasta | Rasta | House GaneshiLal, Karnidan, Muknaram etc. |
4. Plaintiff asserted that the neighbour Ganeshilal and Kunna Ram attempted to encroach upon the suit land and the defendant- respondent filed a civil suit against Ganeshilal and Others in the Court of Civil Judge No.2, Bikaner. After compromise and settlement of dispute between the parties, the said suit was disposed of.
5. The father of the parties had already filed an application before the Competent Authority for conversion of the nature of the land as per user from agricultural to residential, however, decision was awaited. In the meantime, father died on 20.03.1983.
6. The respondent in his written statement admitted that it is a fact that houses are constructed on the suit Khasra, however, the revenue record still shows that the land is agricultural one. The defendant admitted that he had filed a suit against Kunna Ram and Ganeshilal before the Civil Court for removal of encroachment from a portion of the suit property.
7. It is further asserted that other legal heirs of Mangilal were not party to the partition suit, as such, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Moreover some other ancestral properties were not included in the suit, for this reason also, the suit was not maintainable.
8. Side by side, prayer was made for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit property was agricultural property and only Revenue Court had jurisdiction and jurisdiction of the Civil Court was completely barred as per Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act .
9. By the impugned order, the trial Judge rejected the plaint on the ground that in the revenue record the suit property is recorded as agricultural land and unless it is converted for residential use, it would be treated as agricultural land even if it is used for residential purpose. Therefore, the suit was maintainable before the Revenue Court and the trial Judge rejected the plaint.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate that the Revenue Court was competent to entertain the suit only in respect of agricultural land. A land can be said to be agricultural when any crop is being grown and sown in any part of the year. In due course, the land came within municipal area of Bikaner and the authority vested with the Rajasthan Urban Development Trust and the issue regarding alteration of use of land was within competence of the authorities under the Rajasthan Urban Development Act. The learned trial Judge has taken view contrary to the admission of the respondent and case of the parties.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent justifies the order of the trial Judge and submits that the judgment of the trial Judge is completely covered by the judgment of this Court in Ram Kirpal Das Ji Charitable Trust Vs Phool Chand & Ors. reported in 2012(1) DNJ (Raj.) 531; Vijay Singh & Anr. Vs Buddha & Ors. reported in 2012(4) RLW 2932 (Raj.); Lal Singh Jhal
A Civil Court can entertain a partition suit despite the land being recorded as agricultural if the actual use has changed to residential, emphasizing that technicalities should not impede substantia....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, specifically regarding the jurisdiction of the civil cou....
The civil court has jurisdiction to hear a suit for cancellation of a sale deed relating to converted land, even if the sale deed was executed before the conversion.
Civil Courts cannot adjudicate matters concerning partition as per H.P. Land Revenue Act, Section 171, which restricts jurisdiction in partition disputes, asserting that remedy lies within revenue au....
Civil courts lack jurisdiction to challenge partition proceedings by revenue authorities unless a question of title arises or jurisdictional defects are alleged, as prescribed by Section 171 of the H....
Civil courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate partition of agricultural land when no tenancy dispute exists, as per Section 242(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
