[2025:RJ-JD:38255]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 196/2024

1. Chandra Prakash S/o Mathuralal Ji Lakhara, Aged About

50 Years, Resident Of Kankroli Tehsil And District Rajsmand

2. Om Prakash S/o Mathuralal Ji Lakhara, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Kankroli Tehsil And District Rajsamand

3. Mahesh S/o Mathuralal Ji Lakhara, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Kankroli Tehsil And District Rajsmand

4. Banshilal S/o Puroshtam Ji Lakhara, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Kankroli Tehsil And District Rajsmand ----Petitioners Versus Mangilal S/o Gokal Ji Suthar, Resident Of Khatikua Langar Circle Station Road Kankroli Tehsil And District Rajsamand ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rajpurohit Mr. Prashant Tatia Mr. Ankit Somani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avin Chhangani Mr. Preenal Lodha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

Reportable

19/08/2025

1. The instant Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as “CPC”) has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 22.04.2024 passed by Learned District Judge, Rajsamand in Case No. 18/2019 by which the petitioner’s application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC read with 151 of CPC has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the respondent– plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as “plaintiff”), namely Mangilal, filed a civil suit on 26.04.2019 before the trial court seeking cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 23.06.2014 (registered on 24.06.2014) in respect of Aaraji No. 617 Rakba 9 Biswa, along with consequential relief of injunction. The plaintiff alleged that he, recorded khatedar of Aaraji No. 615/2 Rakba 1 Bigha had agreed to sell 15 Biswas of land out of Khasra No. 615/2 to the defendants/petitioners (hereinafter to be referred as “defendants”) for a total consideration of Rs. 54,00,000/-, and executed registered sale deed dated 23.06.2014.

2.1 According to the plaintiff, only Rs. 34,00,000/- was received, while the balance of Rs. 20,00,000/- remained unpaid, and the defendants acted in breach of trust. On this basis, the plaintiff prayed for partial cancellation of the sale deed and injunction. The defendants contested the suit, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, and argued that the plaintiff had executed and acted upon the sale deeds, mutation was attested, possession was delivered, full consideration was paid, and hence the suit was nothing but a recovery claim camouflaged as cancellation, barred by limitation of three years, undervalued for court fee, and devoid of cause of action. The trial court, however, rejected the application on 22.04.2024, holding that the plaintiff claimed knowledge of the sale deed only on 01.08.2018, the suit was properly valued under Section 24 of the Rajasthan Court Fees &

Suits Valuation Act, 1961, and issues of court fee could be framed later. Aggrieved by this order, the defendants have preferred the present revision petition.

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

4. The averments made in the plaint reveal that in paragraph no. 8 of the plaint, it has been mentioned that on 25.07.2018, the defendants approached the plaintiff seeking possession of 00-15 Biswa of Khasra No. 615/2. At that stage, the plaintiff demanded the outstanding amount of ₹20,00,000/-, whereupon the defendants allegedly threatened to take forcible possession, giving rise to the cause of action.

4.1 In para no. 9 of the plaint, a specific plea has been raised that the plaintiff had sold only 00–15 Biswa out of Khasra No. 615/2 through registered sale deed dated 23.06.2014. However, by practicing fraud, the defendants falsely got recorded half share of Khasra No. 617, admeasuring 0–09 Biswa, in the said deed, without payment of the full sale consideration. It has been categorically stated that the plaintiff never sold any porti