[2025:RJ-JP:10602]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 206/2022

1. Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Badrilal, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Village Nahriya, Post Shyampura, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota (Raj.)

2. Badrilal S/o Ram Charan, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Village Nahriya, Post Shyampura, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. Hement Kumar S/o Shri Mohanlal, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Nahriya, Post Shyampura, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota (Raj.)

2. Sunita Nagar D/o Shri Mohanlal, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village Nahriya, Post Shyampura, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota (Raj.)

plaintiffs/respondents

3. Mohan Lal S/o Shri Fatta, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Village Nahriya, Post Shyampura, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota (Raj.)

4. Sub-Registrar And Tehsildar, Sangod, District Kota (Raj.)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Advocate assisted by Mr. Rashtra Bandhu For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Kumar Yadav, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

06/03/2025

1. Instant S.B. Civil Revision Petition is preferred by petitioners defendant aggrieved from dismissal of application under order VII rule 11 CPC on 07.09.2022 in civil suit No. 192/2021 by learned Additional District Judge No.5, Kota.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners while placing reliance upon Pyare Lal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (2019) 3 SCC 692 submits that plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration of sale deed dated 16.07.2021 as null and void, though, they are not a Khatedar tenant on suit property. He further submits that the sale deed dated 16.07.2021 was executed by father of both the plaintiffs as he was a Khatedar tenant. He further submits that and after sale of agricultural land, a suit for declaration cannot be filed in civil Court unless a specific declaration about Khatedari rights is made in favor of plaintiffs. He further submitted that the Civil Court is not competent to declare plaintiffs as Khatedar tenant of suit property. At last, he submitted that suit is barred under Section

207 read with Section 256 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by counsel for respondent-plaintiff on the ground that the objections raised by the petitioners can be considered only after recording of evidence of parties and the trial court has not committed any error while dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. He further places reliance upon judgment in case of Smt. Aruna Vs. Suraj Kumar & Anr., S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 93/2022 by a Coordinate Bench of this court at Jodhpur and submitted that the revenue entries are only for fiscal purposes and on the basis of revenue entries a suit of plaintiff cannot be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. At last, he submitted that a suit to challenge sale deed can only be filed and maintained before the Civil Court.

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsels for both the parties.

5. Brief facts giving rise to instant revision petition are that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) have filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 16.07.2021 with relief of permanent injunction against present petitioners and respondent No.3 Mohanlal (father of plaintiffs). A sale deed was registered with respect to agriculture land as mentioned in para No.1 of plaint, in favor of both the petitioners by respondent No.3- Mohanlal on 16.07.2021 after receipt of sale consideration of ₹12 lacs. Thus, it is a complete sale under the law.

6. During pendency of civil suit, an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was filed by the present petitioners and same was dismissed on 07.09.2022. A perusal of material placed on record clearly indicate that the land in question is an agriculture land and same is recorded in tenancy of respondent No.3 Mohanlal, father of both the plaintiffs. Th