Table of Content
1. summary of the appeal and the undisputed facts regarding the agricultural land and pending partition suit. (Para 1 , 2)
2. civil court jurisdiction is barred until revenue courts determine khatedari rights for agricultural land. (Para 3)
3. non-impleadment of the seller in a sale deed cancellation suit is a fatal procedural error. (Para 4)
4. dismissal of the second appeal due to lack of substantial questions of law. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)

Order

1. The present second appeal has been filed aggrieved of judgment & decree dated 24.02.2026 passed by Additional District Judge, Jayal, District Nagaur in Civil First Appeal No.09/2023 whereby judgment & decree dated 03.04.2018 passed by Civil Judge, Jayal, District Nagaur in Civil Original Suit No.22/2008 (CIS No. 46/2014), stood affirmed. Vide judgment & decree dated 03.04.2018, the learned Trial Court proceeded on to dismiss the suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed, as filed by the plaintiff.

2. The facts which have not been disputed in the present matter are as under:

(i) The land in question is an agricultural land.

(ii) A suit for partition had been filed by the plaintiff which remain pending before the Revenue Court and till the date of filing of the present suit, no share of the plaintiffs had been declared by the competent Revenue Court.

(iii) The seller i.e. one of the coparceners, had not been impleaded in the suit.

(iv) Relief for cancellation of sale deed executed by one of the coparceners has been prayed for while impleading only the purchaser and not the seller.

3. In view of the above undisputed facts, this Court is of the clear opinion that the suit in question was not even maintainable. Once it was evident on record that the land in question was an agricultural land and the plaintiff claimed to have a share in the said ancestral undivided property, he definitely was required to get his rights declared first. A suit for the said purpose was admittedly filed by the plaintiff which remained pending till the filing of the present suit. As is the settled position of law, such a suit was not maintainable. Hon’ble the Apex Court while dealing with a similar issue in Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) Through Natural Guardian (Father) Pradeep Kumar & Ors; 2019 DNJ (SC) 115, observed and held as under:

“18. The appellant has prayed that the gift deed dated 10 February, 2011 be declared void to the extent of the share claimed by the appellant and that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 be restrained from alienating the share of the appellant. The civil court may decree the relief prayed only if it is first determined that the appellant is entitled to khatedari rights in the suit property. Under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, the jurisdiction to declare khatedari rights vests exclusively with the revenue courts. Only after such determination may the civil court proceed to decree the relief as prayed. The explanation to Section 207 clarifies that if the cause of action in respect of which relief is sought can be granted only by the revenue court, then it is immaterial that the relief asked from the civil court is greater than, or in addition to or not identical with the relief which the revenue court would have granted. In view of this matter, the civil court may not grant relief until the khatedari rights of the appellant have been decreed by a revenue court. ... ... ...”

The Court further held as under:

“22. In the present case, the High Court has proceeded on the basis that the suit seeking a declaration of the gift deed relating to disputed agricultural land situated in Sikar as void and restraining Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 from transfer or sale of the agricultural land before the civil court is squarely covered by the bar to the jurisdiction of the civil court under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The claim of the appellant to khatedari rights is pending adjudication by a revenue court which has the exclusive jurisdiction

Click Here to Read the rest of this document