S.B.Civil Revision Petition No.241/2004

Sohan Lal

vs.

Ram Bux & Ors.

DATE OF ORDER : - 6.10.2004

HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J.

Mr.S.S.Purohit, for the petitioner.

Mr.Rakesh Arora, for the respondents.

<><><>

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This revision petition is against the order dated 6^th April, 2004 by which

the trial court after holding that the objections, which have been raised by the

petitioner against the maintainability of the suit can be decided after the

evidence of the parties and, therefore, the plaint of the plaintiff cannot be

rejected at this stage on application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was filed by

predecessor in title of the plaintiffs in the year 1965 and that was decreed by

the Revenue Court in the year 1967 on the basis of compromise. That suit was

for declaration of Khatedari rights. The another suit was filed by the plaintiffs

in the Revenue Court for cancellation of the earlier decree , declaration and

partition. That suit was also compromised and the compromise decree was

passed by the Revenue Court. The plaintiffs have now filed the third suit and,

therefore, the plaintiffs' suit is barred under the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3A

CPC as no suit to challenge a compromise decree is maintainable. Further, the

suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of Khatedari rights is also not triable

by the Civil Courts in view of the bar under Section 256 of the Rajasthan

Tenancy Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the two

judgments; (i) delivered in the case of Mohan Lal Vs. Ratna reported in 1995

RLR (2) 181, which says that suit to challenge the compromise decree is not

maintainable and (ii) this court has decided as back as in the year 1971 in the

case delivered in Gopal Lal Vs. Babu Lal & Ors reported in 1971 (Raj.) 164 that

claim of the share in the agriculture land is an issue triable by the Revenue

Court. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that even in

case, where sale deed is under challenge and there is a claim of Khatedari

rights or share in the agriculture land then also, suit is triable by the Revenue

Court, though, it depends upon the facts of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner after reading the plaint on the basis

of the title given in the plaint submits that the present suit is not for

cancellation of the sale deed and further relied upon para no.14 of the plaint in

support of his argument on the basis that plaintiff has not valued the suit for

cancellation of the sale deed. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not

for cancellation of sale deed.

I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. So

far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit for

declaration of Khatedari rights in relation to agriculture land is maintainable

only in Revenue Court and Civil Court has no jurisdiction, there cannot be any

dispute. The suit for partition for agriculture land is also maintainable only in

the Revenue Court. The earlier two suits, which are alleged to be between the

parties were filed for declaration of the Khatedari rights and for relief of

possession. Therefore, first suit was triable by the Revenue Court is not in

dispute. The second suit was filed for cancellation of the earlier decree and

for declaration and in that suit compromise was filed according to the

petitioners. On the basis of said compromise, the decree was granted.

Therefore, that suit if was only for declaration of any right under the Rajasthan

Tenancy Act and a decree for partition was passed, that could have been done

by the Revenue Court.

So far as in this suit, there is relief of cancellation of sale deed dated

30^th July, 2001 also apart from other reliefs, which is clear from the prayer

made in the plaint. This relief cannot be granted by the Revenue Court. The

heading of the su