Plaintiffs lacking proper standing and filing fees cannot pursue cancellation of sale deeds.

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 18 /07/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-

defendant No. 1 (for short 'the defendant No. 1') under Section

115 CPC against the order dated 07.09.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, Sikar (for short 'the trial Court') in civil suit No. 23/2023 titled as "Phoolchand Vs. Shekhawati Sikshan Sansthan & Ors.", whereby the application filed by defendant No. 1 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deed dated 05.05.2023 in which defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC mentioning therein that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for filing the suit.

Learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 also submits that by way of suit, the plaintiff wanted to cancel the sale deed executed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in favour of defendant No. 1 on 05.05.2023. The value of the said sale deed is Rs. 23,80,900/- but plaintiff had not submitted proper court fees as per valuation of the suit. He filed the court fees as per Section 7(2) A of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act which is not applicable.

Learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 also submits that plaintiff in his plaint mentioned that he had incurred the expenses in the marriage of defendant No. 3 and for that reason, she had relinquished her share in the disputed property. It is also mentioned in the plaint that defendant No. 2 has no financial need because she receives monthly widowed pension due to her husband's Bhagwana death. Sale deed was executed without any sale consideration. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had no knowledge with regard to sale deed and they had not filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed. They are the co-sharer of the disputed property on account of Bhagwana's death.

Learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 also submits that provision of Succession Act is not applicable in agricultural land. Plaintiff had not stated in the plaint that he is ready to purchase the disputed land on same consideration as paid by the defendant No. 1. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 further submits that defendant No. 1 filed a suit for partition before the Sub- Divisional Officer (SDO), Laxmangarh. So, the suit is barred by law. Therefore, the trial Court had committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant No. 1. So, present petition filed by the defendant No. 1 deserves to be allowed.

Learned counsel for defendant No. 1 has placed reliance upon the following judgments-:

1. Vijaya Choudhary Vs. Ramniwas and Ors. in civil revision petition No. 17/2025 decided on 10.07.2025

2. Babu Ram Vs. Santokh Singh (Deceased) through his legal representatives and Ors. in civil appeal No.

2553/2019 decided on 07.03.2019

3. Pyare Lal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania reported in (2019) 3 SCC 692.

4. Jai Prakash Singh Vs. Bachchu Lal reported in MANU/UP/4533/2019

5. Ram Ratan Vs. Chandra Prakash reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Raj. 3838

6. Mohd. Noor & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. reported in (1994) 5 SCC 562

7. Ashutosh Chaturvedi Vs. Prano Devi reported in (2008) 15 SCC 610

8. Shivaji Balaram Haibatti Vs. Avinash Maruthi Pawar reported in (2018) 11 SCC 652

9. Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal & Anr. reported in (2008) 17 SCC 491 Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 and submits that the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant No. 1. Disputed land is undivided and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have no right to sell the disputed land to the defendant No. 1. Learned counsel for the plaintiff al