A plaint claiming possessory rights over land cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without examination of triable issues, ensuring access to justice.

ORDER :

1. The present Civil First Appeal, instituted under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as “CPC”), has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2024, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Civil Suit No. 34/2024. By the said judgment, the learned Court below has allowed the application filed by the defendant–respondent under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and, as a consequence thereof, the plaintiff’s suit has been rejected at the threshold.

1.1 During the pendency of the instant appeal, the appellant, Kanaram unfortunately expired, so the legal representatives of the appellant has been taken on record.

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the appellants claim longstanding khatedari rights and settled possession over their land in Village Anganwa, separated from Khasra No. 78 by a 60-year-old boundary wall. They allege that respondent No. 2, relying on a torn and unreliable revenue map, wrongly treated their land as part of Khasra No. 78 and initiated coercive eviction proceedings without granting them any hearing. According to the appellants, this action arose after they repeatedly complained about encroachments on nearby Khasra No. 73, causing hostility among interested parties. Despite reports that proper demarcation was impossible, a demarcation report dated 21.06.2024 was prepared and used to label their land as encroached Aabadi land. To protect their civil rights, they filed a suit for declaration and injunction, which the Trial Court rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on jurisdictional objections, leading to the present appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.

4. The plaintiffs have made a prayer in the plaint that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 are the lawful owners and possessors of the land in question, and that the demarcation dated 21.06.2024, the superimposed map dated 12.07.2024, and the factual report are illegal, incorrect, and void as they were prepared on a wrong base point. Secondly, the allegation of encroachment on Khasra No. 78 is unfounded. Lastly, to permanent restrain defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from disturbing the plaintiff’s peaceful possession from acting upon the impugned demarcation documents, and from causing any obstruction or interference.

5. After perusing the material available on record, it is evident that the appellants have categorically pleaded their long, settled, and continuous possession over agricultural lands. The lands of the plaintiffs are situated in Village Anganwa and comprises the following parcels namely, Khasra No. 80, admeasuring 13 Bigha 11 Biswa, Chahi Pratham; Khasra No. 80/1, admeasuring 13 Biswa, Gair Mumkin Bera; Khasra No. 135/1, admeasuring 11 Bigha 13 Biswa; Khasra No. 141, admeasuring 16 Bigha 7 Biswa; and Khasra No. 161, admeasuring 17 Bigha 5 Biswa. A boundary wall exists between Khasra Nos. 80 and 78, which, as pleaded, was constructed prior to the last settlement, approximately six decades ago. The present suit pertains exclusively to the dispute concerning land falling in Khasra No. 78. recorded as aabadi/government land.

5.1 It is a well-nigh settled principle of law that for the purpose of deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the suit on any of the grounds mentioned in Rule 11 of Order 7 CPC, only the averments taken in the plaint should be seen and can be considered for the desired purpose. The plea taken by the defendant or documents submitted by him are not required to be considered. A plaint filed citing infringement of civil rights and s