Dismissed

Maniram v. Mamkori

Rajasthan HC9 Mar 2021CR/72/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the revision petition seeking to quash a trial court order dismissing an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The trial court had found that a suit for cancellation of a sale deed related to agricultural land, where the deed was alleged to be voidable, fell under civil court jurisdiction, not the revenue court.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed; trial court order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC upheld.

Maniram Vs Mamkori — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

(1 of 5)

¶2

[CR-72/2019]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 72/2019

¶5

Maniram S/o Shyochand Chimpa, Aged About 84 Years, R/o Ramsara Taal, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu

¶6

Sanjay Singh S/o Krishna Kumar Chimpa, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ramsara Taal, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu. Presently R/o Behind Mohata Iti, Rajgarh, District Churu.

¶7

Ajay Singh S/o Krishna Kumar Chimpa, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ramsara Taal, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu. Presently R/o Behind Mohata Iti, Rajgarh, District Churu.

¶8

Krishna Kumar S/o Maniram Chimpa, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Ramsara Taal, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu. Presently R/o Behind Mohata Iti, Rajgarh, District Churu.

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Mamkori D/o Maniram, Aged About 58 Years, W/o Shankar Lal Chimpa, R/o Ramsara Taal, Presently R/o Sidhmukh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

¶12

Mayawati D/o Maniram, Aged About 55 Years, W/o Ram Kumar Chimpa, R/o Ramsara Taal, Presently R/o Sidhmukh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

¶13

Darshana D/o Maniram, Aged About 45 Years, W/o Prataap Chimpa, R/o Ramsara Taal, Presently R/o Sidhmukh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

¶14

Indrawati W/o Rampal Chimpa, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Ramsara Taal, Sidhmukh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

¶15

Roshni D/o Rampal, Aged About 26 Years, W/o Sunil Chimpa, R/o Ramsara Taal,tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu, Presently R/o Sadalpur, Tehsil Adampur, District Hissar.

¶16

Mamta D/o Rampal, Aged About 22 Years, W/o Sanjay Chimpa, R/o Ramsara Taal,tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu, Presently R/o Sadalpur, Tehsil Adampur, District Hissar.

¶17

Tehsildar, Rajgarh, District Churu

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Manish Shishodia.
	Mr.	Anirudh Khatri.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Vikas Bijarnia.

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶21

Order

¶22

09/03/2021

¶23

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed

¶24

(2 of 5) [CR-72/2019]

¶25

by the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, has been rejected.

¶26

The application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC was filed, inter alia, on the ground that the suit was barred under provisions of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (‘the Rajasthan Tenancy Act’), inasmuch as, the suit land was an agriculture land.

¶27

The application was contested by the respondents and the trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the suit seeking cancellation of sale deed as void did not fall within the 3^rd Schedule of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and only civil court has the jurisdiction.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application by making the said observations as it is well settled that in case the subject matter of the suit is an agriculture land, merely because a sale deed has been executed, it is not necessary that the suit must be filed before the civil court. Once a party gets a declaration from the revenue court and the sale is found to be void, the declaration can be given by the revenue court as well.

¶29

Reliance was placed on judgment in the case of Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania : (2019) 3 SCC 692 .

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. It was submitted that the specific case of the respondents-plaintiffs is that the property in question is joint family property and the transfer was made without there being any power in this regard and, therefore, the transaction was voidable and in view of judgment of this Court in Hasti Cement Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.

¶31

(3 of 5) [CR-72/2019]

¶32

Sandeep Charan & Ors. : 2018 (2) DNJ (Raj.) 421, the said transaction was voidable only and once the transaction was voidable, the suit lies before the civil court only.

¶33

Reliance was placed on judgment in Mahendra Kumar & Ors. v. Smt. Maya Devi & Ors.: S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 182/2017, decided on 11.02.2021.

¶34

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶35

The copy of the plaint filed alongwith the revision petition clearly indicates the case of the defendants-petitioners as under:-

¶36

“¼d½ fd oknhuh la- 1 ls 3] oknh la- 4 ls 6 ds ifr o firk jkeiky o izfroknh la- 1 o 4 dk ifjokj la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj jgk gS tks fgUnw fo/kh dh ferk{kjk 'kk[kk ls 'kkflr gksrk gS o la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj dh iq’rSuh fookfnr df"k Hkwfe oknhuh la- 1 ls 3] oknh la- 4 ls 6 ds ifr o firk jkeiky] izfroknh la- 1 o 4 ds la;qDr fgUnw ifjokj dh iq’rSuh eks:lh tk;nkn gksus ds dkj.k oknhuh la- 1 ls 3 o jkeiky rFkk izfroknh la- 4 vius tUe ds le; ls fookfnr df"k Hkwfe ds izfroknh la- 1 ds lkFk lgnkf;d gS ijUrq izfroknh la- 1 us mDr ';kspan ds LoxZokl ds ckn fookfnr df"k Hkwfe vdsys ds uke ls ntZ djok fy;k tcfd fgUnw mRrjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj mDr fookfnr df"k Hkwfe oknhuh la- 1 ls 3 o jkeiky rFkk izfroknh la- 1 o 4 ds c-gh-c- [kkrsnkjh esa ntZ gksuh pkfg;s FkhA mDr jkeiky dk LoxZokl gks pqdk gS ftl dkj.k oknhuh la- 4 ls 6 mDr jkeiky ds fookfnr df"k Hkwfe esa gd fgLlk dh lgnkf;d gSA ftl dkj.k oknhx.k o izfroknh la- 4 ds gd fgLlk o lgnkf;d fgrksa dks gLrkarfjr djus dk izfroknh la- 1 dks dksbZ gd o vf/kdkj gkfly ugha Fkk ftl dkj.k <u>fookfnr cSukek fcuk vf/kdkj rgjhj rdehy djok;k x;k gksus ds dkj.k izFker% izHkko 'kwU; ¼ ½ gS ftl dkj.k mDr izHkko 'kwU; cSukek ls izfroknh la- 2 o 3 dks fookfnr df"k Hkwfe esa dksbZ gd izkIr ugha gksrs gSA”

¶37

(emphasis supplied)

¶38

The said nature averments and the implication of such averments have been considered by this Court in the case of Hasti

¶39

Cement (supra), wherein it was laid down as under:-

¶40

“21. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it can be safely concluded that if the allegation in the plaint/substance of the allegations in the plaint allege the instrument to be void and no cancellation is required and without seeking such cancellation the relief of declaration pertaining to tenancy rights with regard to the agricultural land in question can be obtained by the plaintiff, only the revenue courts would have jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of the

¶41

(4 of 5)

¶42

[CR-72/2019]

¶43

suit and consequently the jurisdiction of civil courts would be barred. However, if the allegations made in the plaint make out a case of document being voidable, relief of cancellation of such a voidable document can only be granted by civil court and irrespective of the fact that the instrument pertains to agricultural land, the suit would not be barred under Section 207 of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, the trial court in each case, where a issue in this regard is raised, based on the stage of the suit i.e. either based on the plaint averments or the evidence available on record would have to come to a conclusion as to whether the facts as alleged, if established or as established in a case where evidence has been led makes the instrument void or voidable and decide accordingly.”

¶44

It was further laid down in relation to a case where the challenge laid to the transfer was on account of the fact that the land in question was joint family property and that the transfer was made beyond the share of the transferor, it was further laid

¶45

down as under:-

¶46

“25. In view of the above discussion, the present case needs to be examined wherein, as noticed hereinbefore, the declaration has been sought in the plaint seeking cancellation of sale deed to the extent of share of the plaintiff on account of the fact that the suit property being ancestral joint Hindu property the transfer was made without any reason, basis or necessity.

¶47

On the said aspect, while the judgment in the case of Sangram Singh (supra) laid down that such a sale would be void and, therefore, the suit would be triable by revenue court only, in later judgment in the case of Bhopal Singh (supra) it was laid down that such a sale would be voidable and not void. For the said proposition, reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghubanchmani (supra) and a unreported judgment in the case of Longram vs. Jaipal Singh : Civil Revision Petition No.153/1971 decided on 29/7/1971, taking different view was held as not a good law in view of the Supreme Court judgment, for the same reasons the judgment in the case of Sangram Singh (supra) also cannot be said to be a good law though the judgment in the case of Sangram Singh was not cited in the case of Bhopal Singh (supra). Relevant portion of the judgment dealing with the said aspect reads as under:

¶48

“13. In view of the decision in Raghubanchamani's case AIR 1971 SC 776, the sale-deed made by the plaintiff's father, who is defendant No. 5, in favour of the defendants Nos. 1 and 4 (petitioners) is voidable as according to the plaintiff it was without legal necessity and under Section 31(1) of the Specific Relief Act, when the plaintiff has reasonable apprehension that the sale-deed if left outstanding, may cause him serious injury, it became necessary for him to have it adjudged,

¶49

(5 of 5)

¶50

[CR-72/2019]

¶51

void or voidable. The cancellation of the saledeed, being the main relief in the suit, can only be granted by a Civil Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners cannot, in my opinion, derive any benefit from the decision in Jagansingh's case 1973 Raj LW 674. In Longram's case Civil Revn. No. 153 of 1971, D/- 29-7-1971 Raj) (supra) the learned Judge took the view that the sale by the father of undivided coparcenary property is void in the absence of the legal necessity and the prayer for cancellation of the sale-deed is not very material, and further that the suit was essentially for possession of agricultural land. The sale by the father of the plaintiff in the case before me is voidable according to the decision in Raghubanchamani's case AIR 1971 SC 776. I regret my inability to agree with the view taken in Longram's case and it is no more a good law after Raghubanchamani's case.”

¶52

In view of the above, the law laid down in the case of Bhopal Singh (supra) holding the instrument of the present nature as voidable, suit apparently is maintainable before the civil court and in view thereof the order passed by the trial court cannot be faulted.”

¶53

In view thereof, the issue raised is squarely covered by said observations.

¶54

So far as the judgment in the case of Pyarelal (supra) is concerned, the said judgment only dealt with a case where the allegations made in the plaint, made out a case of the document being void whereon it was laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court that for seeking a relief qua the agricultural land, where the document is void, a prior declaration is required for maintaining the suit. The said judgment in the case of Pyarelal (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case.

¶55

In view of the above discussion, though the trial court did not deal with the matter in the right perspective, the order impugned passed by the trial court rejecting the application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC cannot be faulted for the above reasons.

¶56

Consequently, there is no substance in the revision petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶57

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶58

72-PKS/-

Maniram v. Mamkori

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maniram v. Mamkori

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lrs of Hamida Vs Lrs of Jasoda

Mahendra Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Lrs of Ladu Singh

Jagram Bishnoi Vs State

Narayanchand Vs Lal Chand

Lrs of Aasha Devi Vs M/S Rajendra Kumar Surendra Kumar