Judgment / Order

15/09/2023 S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 87/2022:

This revision petition is directed against the order dated

22.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sawaimadhopur (for brevity, “the learned trial Court”) in Civil Suit No.13/2019 whereby, an application filed by the petitioners/defendants no.1 to 3 (for brevity “the defendants no.1 to 3”) under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.

The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent no.1/plaintiff (for brevity, “the plaintiff”) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction stating therein that after death of her father Onkar Singh, a part of subject agricultural land as described in Para no.1 of the plaint situated in Village Jatwada Khurd, Sawaimadhopur, was mutated in her favour vide mutation no.472 dated 30.08.2010. It is averred that under undue pressure exerted by her sister-in-law on her mother, she executed a release deed dated 20.10.2010 of her share in the subject land in favour of her mother Smt. Munni Devi seeking cancellation whereof, she has filed a Civil Suit No.112/2018 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sawaimadhopur as also a revenue suit in the Court of Sub- Divisional Officer, Sawaimadhopur and an appeal against the mutation entry in the Court of District Collector. It was stated that after death of her mother, she came to know that the entire land has been got mutated by her sister-in-law in her favour on the basis of a forged and fabricated release deed dated 29.10.2010 allegedly executed by her mother. It is averred that for cancellation of this release deed also, a prayer has been made in the Civil Suit No.112/2018 and in the revenue suit filed in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sawaimadhopur. It was alleged that the defendant no.4/respondent no.4 has executed a sale deed dated 25.07.2014 of a part of subject agricultural land in favour of the defendants no.1 to 3, which was a sham sale deed without delivery of its possession to the purchaser. Seeking a decree of declaration that the sale deed dated 25.07.2014 was null and void against her rights with a further prayer for the decree of permanent injunction, the suit has been filed. Therein, the defendants no.1 to 3 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC raising objection as to its maintainability in view of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for brevity, “the Act of

1955”). The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 22.03.2022, impugned herein.

Assailing the order, learned counsel for the defendants no. 1 to 3 submits that the learned trial Court did not appreciate that the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction was not maintainable in view of provisions of Section 207 of the Act of 1955. He submits that although, it is claimed in the plaint that she was co-khatedar of the subject agricultural land; but, indisputably, it was not recorded in her khatedari after execution of the release deed dated 30.08.2010 by her of her share in the subject agricultural land in favour of Smt. Munni Devi based whereupon, mutation was recorded in the name of her mother. He, therefore, prays that the civil revision petition be allowed and the order dated 22.03.2022 be quashed and set aside and the plaint be rejected. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in case of Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) Through Natural Guardian (Father) Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania &

Ors.: (2019) 3 SCC 692.

Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that since, she is the recorded khatedar of the subject agricultural land, the suit filed by her for declaration and permanent injunction is maintainable. He submits that the judgment in case of Pyarelal (supra) is inapplicable in the present case inasmuch as therein, the plaintiff was not recorded as khatedar of the agricultural land. He further submits that during pendency of the suit, her appeal