The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, for suits seeking cancellation of sale deeds of agricultural land if the plaintiff's khatedari rights have not been declared by a competent Revenue Court.

1. The present first appeals have been filed aggrieved of order dated 16.04.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, Sojat, District Pali (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Trial Court’) in Civil Original Suit Nos.01/2016 and 11/2015 respectively whereby applications under Order VII Rule 11(d), CPC r.w. Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1955) as filed on behalf of defendant Sohanlal, stood allowed. As a consequence, the respective plaints as filed by the plaintiff stood rejected and the suit for cancellation of sale deeds dated 23.03.2014 and permanent injunction, stood dismissed.

2. While allowing the applications, the learned Trial Court observed that admittedly the sale deeds in question pertained to an agricultural land and as per the case of the plaintiff himself, he had already preferred a suit before the Revenue Court for declaration of his rights. The Court observed that as is the settled position of law, unless the plaintiff gets his khatedari rights in the land in question declared, he has no right to maintain the suit for cancellation of the sale deed.

3. The Court while relying upon the judgments of Hon’ble the Apex Court in Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) Through Natural Guardian (Father) Pradeep Kumar & Ors; 2019 DNJ (SC) 115 and Shri Ram & Anr. Vs. 1st Additional District Judge & Ors; AIR 2001 SC 1250 and further, the judgment of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Kamli Devi Vs. Rampyari & Ors.; 2022 (4) DNJ (Raj.) 1351 held that the suit in question could have been maintained by the plaintiff only after declaration of his khatedari rights. The Court further observed that the plaintiff was neither a recorded khatedar nor was his possession on the land in question prima facie evident. Therefore, the relief of declaration as prayed for by him could have been granted only by a Revenue Court and the other prayer for injunction, being an ancillary/consequential relief, could also be granted by a Revenue Court.

4. So far as the prima facie finding/observation regarding the possession as recorded/made by the learned Trial Court is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the same ought not to have been recorded by the learned Trial Court at the stage of Order VII Rule 11, CPC. The said finding/observation definitely would have an impact on the merit of the suit before the Revenue Court which does deserve interference. The finding to the said effect is hence, set aside. But then, the conclusion as reached to, by the learned Trial Court to the effect that the relief of declaration/cancellation as prayed for by the plaintiff could have been granted only by a Revenue Court and the relief for injunction being an ancillary/consequential relief could also be granted by a Revenue Court, being in consonance with law, is affirmed. This Court is in concurrence with the said finding as recorded by the learned Trial Court.

5. The reliefs as prayed for in the plaint (Civil Original Suit No. 01/2016) by the plaintiff read as under:

“A. OkknxzLr nLrkost fnukad 23-03-2014 rSbZl ekpZ nks gtkj pkSng oknh ds vf/kdkjksa ds fo#) ,sbUlh;ks oksbZM gksus ls ,oa fof/k ds izko/kkuksa ds izfrdqy gksus ls fujLr ?kksf’kr fd;k tkosA

B. LFkkbZ fu’ks/kkKk bl vk”k; dh lkfnj QjekbZ tkos fd oknxzLr nLrkost fnukad 23-03-2014 rSbZl ekpZ nks gtkj pkSng ds vk/kkj ij izfroknh la[;k 1 ,d fdlh Hkh l[l ;k lLaFkk dks cspku] cDlhl] jgu b