Sohan Singh S/o Shri Devisingh vs Rajkidevi D/o Shri Bhanwar Singh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Raj) 2229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Sohan Singh S/o Shri Devisingh – Appellant
Versus
Rajkidevi D/o Shri Bhanwar Singh – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vikram Sharma
For the Respondents: Avin Chhangani, Avinash Bhati

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed an appellant's revision petition challenging a trial court order that rejected a defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to dismiss a suit for the cancellation of a sale deed involving agricultural land (!) (!) (!) .
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 03.03.2023, alleging that the agricultural land was ancestral and that the respondent had acquired an equal share by birth under the Hindu Succession Act, rendering the sale deed voidable (!) (!) .
The defendant argued that the suit was barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, contending that jurisdiction over agricultural land disputes lies exclusively with Revenue Courts (!) (!) (!) .
The trial court rejected the defendant's application, holding that the relief sought was the cancellation of a voidable instrument, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts (!) (!) (!) .
The High Court affirmed that if a document is voidable, the civil court retains jurisdiction to grant cancellation, overriding the bar under Section 207 of the Tenancy Act, whereas if the document is void, the Revenue Court would have jurisdiction (!) (!) (!) .
Relying on precedents such as Maniram vs. Mamkori and Hasti Cement, the court held that the nature of the instrument (void vs. voidable) determines jurisdiction, independent of the subject matter being agricultural land (!) (!) (!) .
Specifically, the court cited Raghubanchmani to establish that a sale of joint family property without legal necessity is voidable, and thus the cancellation can only be adjudicated by a Civil Court (!) (!) (!) .
The High Court concluded that since the plaint alleged the sale deed was voidable, the civil court had the requisite jurisdiction, and the trial court did not commit any jurisdictional error (!) (!) (!) .
Consequently, the revision petition was rejected, and the stay petition was disposed of (!) (!) .

Table of Content
1. facts concerning the legal dispute and proceedings. (Para 1 , 2)
2. analysis of jurisdiction issues concerning voidable documents. (Para 3 , 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. arguments regarding jurisdiction over agricultural land disputes. (Para 5 , 6)
4. conclusion rejecting the revision petition. (Para 13)

ORDER :

1. By the instant revision petition under Section 115 CPC, petitioner-defendant has assailed order dated 18.10.2023, passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajsamand (for short ‘learned trial Court’) in Civil Original Case No.05/2023, whereby learned trial Court, by the order impugned, rejected application of the petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

2. Succinctly stated the fact of case that on 05.04.2023, the respondent no.1- plaintiff has filed a suit before Senior Civil Judge, Rajsamand for cancellation of sale deed dated 03.03.2023 as null and void and sought permanent injunction against petitioner- defendant. It was inter alia alleged in the plaint that the agriculture land bearing khata Nos. 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283 and 284 ad-measuring about 6.2594 hectare situated in village Antaliya Patwar Circle, Antaliya, Tehsil Garhbor, Distri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Raj) 2229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPURCHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMASohan Singh S/o Shri Devisingh – AppellantVersusRajkidevi D/o Shri Bhanwar Singh – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

Related Judgments

Samcar Glass Ltd. VS Commissioner of Central Exicse, Jaipur

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Sohan Singh S/o Shri Devisingh – Appellant
Versus
Rajkidevi D/o Shri Bhanwar Singh – Respondent