[2023:RJ-JP:25843]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 16/2021

Sunil Tiwari S/o Shri Satyaprakash Tiwari, Resident Of Shitla Ka

Vaas, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar.

----Petitioner/Defendant

Versus

1.

Smt. Geeta Devi W/o Late Hariprasad Pareek, Aged about

60 years,

2.

Balchand S/o Late Hariprasad Pareek, Aged about 36

years

Both are Resident Of Village Majipura, Tehsil Dhod,

District Sikar.

----Non-Petitioners/Plaintiffs

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Ashok Sharma

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Akshat Chaudhary

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Judgment / Order

29/09/2023

This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated

13.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No.2,

Sikar (for brevity, “the learned trial Court”) in Civil Suit

No.44/2016

whereby,

an application filed by the

petitioner/defendant (for brevity, “the defendant”) under Order 7

Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

The relevant facts in brief are that the respondents/plaintiffs

(for brevity, “the plaintiffs”) filed a suit for cancellation of the sale

deed dated 21.06.1980 and permanent injunction alleging therein

that taking undue advantage of an erroneous entry of the subject

agricultural land in her khatedari, Mst. Badami, who did not have

any right or title in the subject property, has sold it to the

[2023:RJ-JP:25843]

(2 of 5)

[CR-16/2021]

defendant vide sale deed dated 21.6.1980. Therefore, the decree

as aforesaid was prayed for. Therein, the defendant filed an

application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC raising objection as to

maintainability of the suit in view of Section 207 of the Rajasthan

Tenancy Act, 1955 which has been dismissed by the learned trial

Court vide order dated 13.01.2021, impugned herein.

Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the

defendant submits that in absence of declaration of their khatedari

rights in the subject agricultural land, the suit filed by the plaintiffs

seeking cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction is not

maintainable. He, therefore, prays that the revision petition be

allowed, the order dated 13.01.2021 be quashed and set aside

and the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC be

allowed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, supporting the

findings recorded by the learned trial Court, would submit that the

revision petition deserves to be dismissed.

Heard. Considered.

The learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by

the defendant on the premise that as per the averments in the

plaint, the subject land was recorded in the khatedari of ancestors

of the petitioners. However, indisputably, neither the plaintiffs nor,

their predecessor-in-interest Late Shri Hari Prasad Pareek were

recorded as khatedar of the subject agricultural land; rather, from

the averments contained in para no.3 of the plaint, it is reflected

that the mutation entry dated 12.01.1969 entered in name of Late

Shri Hari Prasad Pareek was cancelled and the land was recorded

in the khatedari of Mst. Badami Devi under the order of the

[2023:RJ-JP:25843]

(3 of 5)

[CR-16/2021]

Assistant Settlement Officer. In case of Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra

Pilania (Minor) Through Natural Guardian (Father) Shri

Pradeep Kumar Pilania & Ors.: (2019) 3 SCC 692, involving

identical controversy, their Lordships held as under:-

“22. The appellant has prayed that the gift deed

dated 10.2.2011 be declared void to the extent of the

share claimed by the appellant and that Respondent 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