Order

1. The present first appeal has been filed aggrieved of order dated 08.04.2022 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No.23/2022 whereby application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as filed on behalf of the defendants, stood allowed and as a consequence, the suit for declaration of the gift deeds to be null and void qua the plaintiffs, stood dismissed.

2. It is an admitted fact that the land in question is an agricultural land. Further, as per the pleadings in the plaint, the said land is the ancestral undivided property of a joint Hindu family of which plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 11 were the members. The plaintiffs have claimed their right in the ancestral property being the coparceners. It has been averred that two gift deeds have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3. The said gift deeds being in excess of the share of defendant No.1, deserves to be declared null and void qua the rights of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.4 & 5.

3. Learned Trial Court, while relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania; (2019) 2 DNJ (SC) 115 observed that without the plaintiffs getting their rights qua the agricultural land declared by a competent Revenue Court first, they could not have maintained the present suit.

4. This Court is in consonance with the finding as recorded by the learned Trial Court.

5. Evidently, the plaintiffs have prayed for cancellation of sale deed & gift deed on the premise that they too had a share in the agricultural land, the same being an ancestral and undivided joint family property. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the shares of the coparceners were ever declared or defined. Further, it is an admitted case of the plaintiffs that the property had never been partitioned. In that event, as is the settled position of law, where Khatedari rights are yet to be decreed, a claimant must first approach the Revenue Court. In Pyarelal (supra), Hon’ble the Apex Court observed that unless and until the rights qua an agricultural land are determined by the Revenue Court, no consequential relief for cancellation of any document pertaining to the said land can be granted by the Civil Court. The above ratio has been reiterated in the recent judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Kamli Devi Vs. Smt. Ram Pyari & Ors.; 2023(1) RLW (Raj.) 740 and the judgment of this Court in Sunil & Ors. Vs. Ostwal Phoschem (India) Ltd. & Ors.; 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 64

6. In view of the above settled position of law, the learned Trial Court rightly allowed application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC. No case for interference in the order impugned is made out. The present appeal is hence, dismissed

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that that it be observed that limitation would not come in way of the appellants if they file a fresh suit after getting their rights declared by a Revenue Court. So far as the aspect of limitation is concerned, evidently, the plaint as preferred by the plaintiffs has been rejected on the count that they have to first get their rights declared by a competent Revenue Court. In that event, cause of action to challenge the gift deeds in question would definitely survive to the plaintiffs till the date they get their rights so declared.

8. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of