SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(All) 3492

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANDEEP JAIN, J.
Smt. Shikha Agrawal - Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Garg (Deceased) And 3 Others - Respondent
First Appeal No. - 21 of 2023
Decided On : 25-09-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Anshul Kumar Singhal, Vinod Kumar Agrawal
For the Respondent: Chandan Sharma, Shubham Tripathi

Civil courts retain jurisdiction over non-agricultural properties in disputes involving agricultural claims, and cannot dismiss the entire plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 without evaluating all claims on their merits.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 96 - Order 7 Rule 11(d) - Appeal against rejection of plaint regarding agricultural property by trial court - Trial court erred in dismissing the plaint based on the classification of property without evaluating the merits of claims regarding non-agricultural properties - The plaintiff is seeking a declaration of ownership and an injunction against the defendant. (Paras 1, 20, 28, 30)

(B) Jurisdiction - Civil courts have jurisdiction to decide on non-agricultural properties, even if some of the disputed properties are agricultural, as established by Supreme Court precedent, which insists on trial based on merit when legitimate claims exist. (Paras 25, 28, 30)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, Shikha Agrawal, sought a decree of declaration and permanent injunction on various properties left by her deceased father against her brother, Sanjeev Garg, who passed during the proceedings. The trial court rejected her plaint asserting it dealt with agricultural land outside civil court jurisdiction. (Paras 1-3, 11)

Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, reinstating the plaintiffs' suit due to improper dismissal by the trial court without addressing all pertinent facts and properties. (Paras 31, 32)

Issues: The central issues involved whether the trial court was correct in classifying all disputed properties as agricultural and if the suits should be trialed rather than rejected based on jurisdictional claims. (Paras 20, 30)

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that even if a portion of the claim pertains to agricultural land, the presence of non-agricultural claims permits the civil court to hear the case, emphasizing that suits should not be dismissed solely based on classification without thorough examination of facts. (Paras 25, 30)

Result: The appeal is allowed, setting aside the trial court's order, with direction for expedited trial and adherence to due process. (Paras 31, 34)

Table of Content
1. overview of plaintiffs' claims and properties (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 96 CPC has been preferred by the plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 3.12.2022 passed by the court of Civil Judge(Senior Division) / FTC, Ghaziabad in O.S. no. 782 of 2021 Smt. Shikha Agrawal Vs. Sanjeev Garg (Deceased) through LR's whereby, the plaintiffs suit has been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground that plaintiff has sought the relief of declaration and permanent injunction regarding immovable property which is an agricultural land, which can only be granted by revenue Court.

2. Factual matrix is that the plaintiff Smt.Shikha Agrawal filed O.S. no. 782 of 2021 against his real brother Sanjeev Garg(died during pendency of suit) with the averments that their father Satyaprakash Garg died on 12.5.2009 leaving behind his wife Smt. Premlata Garg, daughter Shikha Agrawal(plaintiff) and son Sanjeev Garg(defendant) as his legal heirs. It was further averred that the defendant died during pendency of suit on 8.3.2022 leaving behind his wife Smt.Vandana Garg and sons Shaurya Garg,Dhairya Garg. Smt.Premlata Garg also died on 22.3.2020. She further averred that on the death of her parents, she and the legal heirs of deceased defendant became the joint owners of all movable and immovable property left behind by her parents, in which she is having 1/2 share.

3. The plaintiff further averred that at the time of the death of her parents, they were having the following immovable properties:-

(i)An ancestral residential three storyed building and godown etc. having no. 24 and 25 (new no. 27 & 28) situated in Naya Ganj, Ghaziabad in which her father was having one third share and after his death, she and the defendant each became owners in possession of one sixth share.

(ii)Marriage home and banquet hall namely Imperial Garden and Heritage-Inn, which were constructed about 25 – 30 years back, situated on Hapur road, Ghaziabad, which were used as a single unit, which were having 10 foot high boundary, having two permanent gates, each having 5000 ft² covered area having permanent roof, air- conditioned banquet halls, having common toilets, five large guest rooms with attached toilets, office blocks, pantry in an area of about 3000 ft² covered area, etc. were situated. The marriage hall was constructed by his late father with Mahesh Chand Garg and Bharat Bhushan Garg which was completely residential, commercial and non-agricultural property situated in khasra No. 448 m, 526, 527, 544 and 543 m having area of 10,090 m² situated in village Dasna Ghaziabad. She further averred that the above property was situated within Ghaziabad city, on the Ghaziabad – Hapur road, which was residential and commercial property of her father, towards east of which was a developed multi-storeyed residential colony namely Ansal Garden Enclave developed by Ansal builders, towards west was Hapur road, thereafter densely populated Govind Puram residential scheme of Ghaziabad Development Authority which was established 30 – 35 years back, towards north was Ganga Puram residential colony and towards South was Ansal Garden Enclave and Flora Garden Enclave residential colonies. She further averred that in the above properties, her father was having one third share and after his death, she and the defendant each are co-owners of one sixth share.

(iii)Immovable property situated in Hindon civil airport, Ghaziabad which was situated within the city, which was residential and commercial, having khasra number 116 m, 125 m, 130/3, 131 m, 132 m, 133 m and 142, total area 18,850 m² situated in village Sikandarpur, Pargana Loni, tehsil and District Ghaziabad in which her father was having two thirds share, and after his death, she and the defendant each was having one third share. The above residential land was situated within Ghaziabad city, in between densely populated Rajendra Nagar and Hindon Air Force Station etc.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top