Disposed

Babu Lal S/O Guman Chand Urf Bhagwan Sahai v. Raghukul Shikshan Santhan Dausa through Minister Rajneesh Sharma S/O Kajod Mal

Rajasthan HC7 Dec 2022CSA/478/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal treated as a civil miscellaneous appeal, this Court disposed of the matter by leaving the impugned order quashing the rejection of plaint intact. The Court held that Order 7 Rule 11 CPC does not bar the suit at the plaint stage, as mere erection of a school on agricultural land does not divest civil court jurisdiction for civil rights claims, deferring the jurisdictional objecti

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was disposed of by leaving the order quashing the rejection of the plaint (impugned order dated 16.07.2018) intact, pending final decision on jurisdictional issues at trial.

Babu Lal S/O Guman Chand Urf Bhagwan Sahai Vs Raghukul… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 478/2018

¶3

Babu Lal S/o Guman Chand Urf Bhagwan Sahai, R/o Sira Ki Dhani Dausa District Dausa

¶4

Lalita Devi W/o Babu Lal, R/o Sira Ki Dhani Dausa District Dausa

¶5

Gangadhar S/o Gheesharam, R/o Ajabgarh Gugli Ka Guwada Tehsil Thanagaji Present Residing At Sira Ki Dhani Dausa District Dausa

¶6

Babu Lal S/o Ram Lal, R/o Gram Kakroda Tehsil Rajgarh Present Residing At Sira Ki Dhani Dausa District Dausa

¶7

Poonam Mina W/o Babu Lal, R/o Gram Kakroda Tehsil Rajgarh Present Residing At Sira Ki Dhani Dausa District Dausa

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Raghukul Shikshan Santhan Dausa Through Minister Rajneesh Sharma S/o Kajod Mal, R/o Gram Chareda Present Residing At 8/20 Vikas Colony Dausa Waste Vidhya Public School Nh 11 Omshiv T.t. College Ke Pass Jirota Road Dausa

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prakash Chandra Jain with Mr. Zeeshan Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶14

Judgment

¶15

07/12/2022

¶16

Instant second appeal has been preferred by appellantsdefendants, challenging the judgment dated 16.07.2018 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No.08/2018 by the Court of District Judge, Dausa, District Dausa (Rajasthan) whereby and whereunder the first appellate court has quashed the Order dated 03.04.2018,

¶17

(2 of 5)

¶18

[CSA-478/2018]

¶19

rejecting the plaint of respondent-plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the suit has been remanded to the trial court for deciding in accordance of law.

¶20

At the outset, counsel for respondent has pointed out that the present second appeal is not maintainable against the order of remand and the impugned order could have been challenged by way of filing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Counsel for appellants does not dispute this legal proposition and prays that this appeal may be treated as civil miscellaneous appeal. Since the impugned order under challenged dated 03.04.2018 is assailable before the High Court by way of civil miscellaneous appeal, therefore, instead of directing the Registry to convert this second appeal into civil miscellaneous appeal, with consent of counsel for both parties and in the interest of justice, this appeal has been heard within scope of Order 43 Rule 1 CPC as civil miscellaneous appeal, ignoring the nomenclature of the appeal.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record.

¶22

Respondent-plaintiff has instituted a suit for permanent injunction invoking jurisdiction of the civil court stating inter alia that the agricultural land in question was purchased through registered sale deed dated 28.12.2012 for the purpose of running an educational institution and whereupon a building of educational institution, namely “Vidhya Public School” has been constructed and the same is running. Plaintiff has prayed for following relief in the plaint:

¶23

"क- दावा वादी ववरुद्ध प्रव प्रतिवादीगण वगण डि डिक्रीफ़ररी फ़रमा फ़रम ा य म ा या जवा ।

¶24

ख- वगण डिक डिक्रीस्ाई व आदाशातरी फ़रमक व निषाधाजा बहक फ़रम ा यदी ववरुद्ध प्रव प्रतिवादीगण इस अरी फ़ र म क डिक्री

¶25

पारर प्रति फररी फ़रमाई म ा या ज फ़रम ा य वक वादी संस्ा नि का उक्त ववधा पव पब्लिक सककपब्लि, वस् प्रति निाश निपब्लि हाईवा .

¶26

(3 of 5)

¶27

[CSA-478/2018]

¶28

11, माया जीरत प्रतिा रतगण डि, ओरी फ़रमवशव टी.टी. कॉपब्लिामाया जका पास माया जी फ़रम ा य प्रतिा कपब्लिा प्रतिहसीपब्लि दौसा का ववदापब्लि फ़रमाय व संस्ा नि री फ़रमवकसी प्रकार क डिक्रीबाधा पहधा प हुां निा सा, वकसी भ ी प्रकार ववदापब्लि फ़रमाय का सटाफ व बचपहुचत व बस डाईवराईवरों व संस्ा का पदावधकारी, सटाफ, पररमाया जत आवद कत वकसी भ ी प्रकार सा उक्त ववदापब्लि फ़रमाय का संपहुचापब्लि नि कर निा सा रतक निा सा फ़रम ा य वकसी प्रकार का झगगण डिा फसाद कर ववधापब्लि फ़रमाय का शैक्षवणक री फ़रमाहौपब्लि खराब कर निा सा फ़रम ा य संस्ा नि सककपब्लि क डिक्रीस समपवसम्पत्ति कत वकसी प्रकार नि कसा नि व क्षव प्रति पहधा प हुां निा सा व संस्ा नि का ववदापब्लि फ़रमाय का स पहुचारू व शावर प ्रतिकणश प् र तिीका सा संपहुचापब्लि नि कर निा री फ़रमप्रव प्रतिवादीगण सव फ़रमायं फ़रम ा य अप निा रररिश प्रतिादारत, ऐमया जरटत ा , निौकरत, करी फ़रमशपहुचारी आवद वकसी भ ी प्रकार क डिक्रीदखपब्लिंदामाया जी कर निा फ़रम ा य कर निा सा स्ाई रूप सा प्रव प्रतिबवरध प्रति रहा। वगण डि डिक्रीबहक वादी ववरुद्ध प्रव प्रतिवादीगण पारर प्रति फररी फ़रमाई म ा या ज फ़रम ा य ।

¶29

ग- फ़रमायह वक अर फ़रमाय अ नि तष माया जत प्रकरण क डिक्रीपररवस्व प्रति अ नि सार र फ़रम ा य फ़रम ा यपब्लि फ़रमाय उवपहुच प्रति सरी फ़रमझा वादी का हक री फ़रमप्रदा नि वक फ़रम ा य म ा या जवा व खपहुचाश वाद पत्र वादी कत प्रव प्रतिवादीगण सा वदपब्लिा फ़रम ा य म ा या जवा ।"

¶30

Defendants No.1 & 2 have filed their written statement and defendant No.3 Gangadhar has filed a separate written statement. In written statements, defendants taken a defence that the plaintiff has no locus standi and the suit is not triable by the civil court. Defendant No.3 moved a separate application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC raising an objection that land on which the school building has been alleged to be erected is an agricultural land and the same has not been converted into non-agriculture, therefore, the suit is not triable before the civil court and the same has to be returned to be presented before the revenue court. Reliance has been placed on Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

¶31

Learned trial court has allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC vide Order dated 03.04.2018 and rejected the plaint for want of jurisdiction to try such suit by civil court. 7. Plaintiff challenged the order dated 03.04.2018 by way of filing first appeal. The first appellate court vide judgment impugned dated 16.07.2018 allowed the appeal and taking into consideration the nature of relief, prayed for and the suit property

¶32

(4 of 5)

¶33

[CSA-478/2018]

¶34

is not being used for agricultural purpose observed that the suit cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Accordingly, the appellate court quashed and set aside the order dated 03.04.2018 and remanded the suit to the civil court for trial.

¶35

Counsel for appellants has argued that from para No.4 of the plaint, it is clear that the land in question is agricultural in nature and though thereupon a building of educational institution/school has been erected, but the nature of land has not be changed and therefore, the civil court would not have jurisdiction to trial the present suit and the suit is barred to be trialed before civil court by virtue of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

¶36

Per contra, counsel for respondent submits that from perusal of the plaint, it is clear that suit property is being used for running educational institution and this fact has not been disputed. The suit property is situated in the urban area and considering the nature of the suit property and relief, the jurisdiction of civil court is not barred and the suit is triable by the civil court. Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Harpal Singh Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. [(2018) 11 SCC 113] .

¶37

Having heard counsel for both parties and from perusal of plaint, this Court finds that present civil suit has been filed in respect of the functioning of the of school, to seek permanent injunction against appellants-defendants not to interfere in running the educational institution. On pleadings of plaint as a whole, it may not be inferred at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC that the present suit is not triable by the civil court. Merely school building was erected on an agricultural land would not divest the

¶38

(5 of 5)

¶39

[CSA-478/2018]

¶40

jurisdiction of civil court to trial the suit, more so when nature of injunction prayed for pertaining to civil rights of plaintiff.

¶41

Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Harpal Singh (Supra) considered the provisions of Section 3(13) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act and observed that “The position of law which has been consistently followed is that where the land has not been used for any purpose contemplated under the Land Reforms Act and has been built upon, it would cease to be agricultural land. Once agricultural land loses its basic character and has been converted into authorized/unauthorized colonies by dividing it into plots, disputes of plot holders cannot be decided by the revenue authorities and would have to be resolved by the civil court.”

¶42

The scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is limited to pleadings of plaint. By perusal of plaint, the suit may not be held as barred by jurisdiction of the civil court. However, since appellants-defendants have taken objection in their written statements in respect of the jurisdiction of the civil court, therefore, the impugned order and findings recorded by this Court in the present order will not come in way in deciding such objection after framing necessary issues and recording evidence of parties, while deciding the suit finally on merits.

¶43

As a result, without interfering with the impugned order dated (*)16.07.2018, the present second appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations.

¶44

Record of courts below be sent back.

¶45

All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶46

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶47

SACHIN/95

¶48

The date of impugned order i.e. 16.07.2018 has been corrected pursuant to order dated 28.05.2024 in SB CMA No.57/2024.

Babu Lal S/O Guman Chand Urf Bhagwan Sahai v. Raghukul Shikshan Santhan Dausa through Minister Rajneesh Sharma S/O Kajod Mal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Lal S/O Guman Chand Urf Bhagwan Sahai v. Raghukul Shikshan Santhan Dausa through Minister Rajneesh Sharma S/O Kajod Mal

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

Diwan Shah Vs Food Corporation of Inia

Smt. Nani W/O Shri Veeram Singh Vs Shri Harji S/O Shri Ladu Ji

Rafik Vs Tara Soni

Daryav Bai Vs Hanot Devi

Bhagtaram Vs Rajmata Laxmi Kanwar

Amar Chand Vs Smt Vijaya