Appeal against order rejecting civil suit for declaration and injunction. High Court held plaintiff cannot approach civil court without first securing khatedari rights decree from revenue court, dismissing appeal on jurisdictional grounds.
None
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No.280/2022
Smt. Kamli Devi W/o Shri Hanuman Sharma D/o Late Shri Puranmal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Kanthawala, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur.
----Plaintiff/Appellant
Versus
(2 of 9)
[CFA-280/2022]
----Defendant-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Mitrucka For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
REPORTABLE
03/08/2022
(3 of 9)
[CFA-280/2022]
upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in case of Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (minor) & Ors. reported in
[(2019) 3 SCC 692] and two other judgments of Rajasthan High Court passed in case of Bagaram & Ors. vs. Balkishan @ Balramkishan & Anr. reported in [2019 (2) WLC (Raj.) UC 551] and Rukmani vs. Bhola & Ors. reported in [2012 (2) WLC (Raj.) 797].
(4 of 9)
[CFA-280/2022]
(5 of 9)
[CFA-280/2022]
dated 02.11.2015 was passed on application of subsequent purchasers of lands in question i.e. Khasra Nos.202, 204 to 209 measuring 2.41 hectare and it has been clarified that the consent order dated 23.02.2015 will not operate in relation to these lands which had already been sold by father-Puranmal prior to that order vide registered sale deed dated 03.02.2014 in favour of respondent No.9-Sharwan Lal Yadav, who later on has further sold these lands to the subsequent purchasers respondent Nos.10 & 11.
(6 of 9)
[CFA-280/2022]
present civil suit claiming her 1/8th khatedari rights only on the basis of consent order dated 23.02.2015 passed by the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, discussed hereinabove and wherein she is not party at all, moreso the same has been amended subsequently vide order dated 02.11.2015.
“23. A claimant whose khatedari rights have been decreed by a revenue court is however on a different footing from a claimant whose khatedari rights are pending adjudication by a revenue court. Where the khatedari rights are yet to be decreed, a claimant must first approach the revenue court. The relief to declare the gift deed void and to restrain respondents Nos. 1 to 5 from interfering with or alienating the property vesting in a civil court may be sought for in a suit by a claimant in whom khatedari rights have been decreed by a revenue court.
25. The question before this court was whether a recorded tenure-holder having prima facie title in his favour and in possession was required to file a suit in the revenue court, or where the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit seeking relief of cancellation of a void document. Upholding the jurisdiction of civil court to try the suit, a two judge Bench of this Court differentiated between a recorded tenure holder, and an unrecorded tenure holder with the following observations:
“7. …we are of the opinion that where a recorded tenure holder having a prima facie title and in possession files suit in the civil court for cancellation of sale deed having obtained on the ground of fraud or impersonation cannot be directed to file a suit for declaration in the revenue court - reason being that in such a case, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under cloud. He does not require declaration of his title to the land. The position
(7 of 9)
[CFA-280/2022]
would be different where a person not being a recorded tenure holder seeks cancellation of sale deed by filing a suit in the civil court on the ground of fraud or impersonation. There necessarily the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of his title and, therefore, he may be directed to approach the revenue court, as the sale deed being void has to be ignored for giving him relief for declaration and possession.”
26. Though the above principles emerge in the context of the bar under Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the logic of the judgment extends to the bar under Section 207 read with Section 256 of the of the Tenancy Act. A recorded khatedar stands on a different footing compared to a claimant seeking a decree of their khatedari rights. A claimant seeking a decree of khatedari rights is barred from filing a suit in the civil court prior to their khatedari right being decreed by a revenue court when the relief sought for by the civil court includes a determination of khatedari rights.”
(8 of 9)
[CFA-280/2022]
(9 of 9) [CFA-280/2022]
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SAURABH/118
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil court can dismiss a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land title without first requiring the plaintiff to seek title declaration from a revenue court
Whether reliance on a consent order where the person claiming title was not a party, coupled with subsequent land sale, establishes a cause of action in civil court.
Whether exclusive jurisdiction under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act bars civil court jurisdiction over disputes regarding khatedari rights.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (minor) & Ors.Relied on¶043
Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (minor) & Ors. [(2019) 3 SCC 692] · Who else cites this
Bagaram & Ors. vs. Balkishan @ Balramkishan & Anr.Relied on¶029
Bagaram & Ors. vs. Balkishan @ Balramkishan & Anr. [2019 (2) WLC (Raj.) UC 551]
Rukmani vs. Bhola & Ors.Relied on¶029
Rukmani vs. Bhola & Ors. [2012 (2) WLC (Raj.) 797]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Kamli Devi W/o Shri Hanuman Sharma D/o Late Shri Puranmal
Smt. Rampyari W/o Late Shri Puranmal
Smt. Raja Devi W/o Shri Gyarsi Lal D/o Late Shri Puranmal
Sudes Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
