Dismissed

Ratan Lal and Ors. v. Kannaji and Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Apr 2023CFA/258/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal against the dismissal of a partition suit regarding agricultural lands. The court held that the Civil Court correctly refused to adjudge partition or cancel documents without a prior declaration of rights by the Revenue Court.

What did the court decide?

The present appeal against the dismissal of the suit is dismissed.

Ratan Lal and Ors. Vs Kannaji and Ors. — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/010943]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 258/2013

¶4

Ratan Lal S/o Shri Kanna Ji Dangi, Age about 48 years, R/o Village Manwakhera, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur (Raj.)

¶5

Smt. Ganga D/o Shri Kanna Ji Dangi, Age about 56 years, R/o Village Dangiyon ka Guda, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur (Raj.)

¶6

Smt. Gameri D/o Shri Kanna Ji Dangi, Age about 54 years, R/o Village Eklinpura, Tehsil Girwa, District Udiapur (Raj.)

¶7

Smt. Gulabi D/o Shri Kanna Ji Dangi, Age about 56 years, R/o Village Manwakhera, Tehsil Girwa, District Udiapur (Raj.)

¶8

----Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

Shri Kanna Ji Dangi S/o Shri Shri Uda Ji Dangi

¶11

Smt. Lali W/o Shri Rooplal Dangi

¶12

Shri Sanjay @ Tulsi Ram S/o Shri Kanna Ji Dangi

¶13

Shri Dinesh S/o Shri Roop Lal Dangi

¶14

Shri Suresh S/o Shri Rooplal Dangi

¶15

Shri Dilip S/o Shri Rooplal Dangi, Minor (Age about 17 years) Through its Mother and Natural Guardian Above No.2 Smt. Lali W/o Shri Rooplal Dangi, All above No.1 to 6 are R/o Village Manwakhera Tehsil Girwa, District Udiapur (Raj.)

¶16

Shri Mangal Jain S/o Shri Chaggan Lal Jain R/o 2 Nakoda Nagar, Hiran Magri, Sector No.5, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶17

Smt. Geeta Goswami W/o Shri Ramesh Goswami, R/o Parahet, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur (Raj.)

¶18

Smt. Asha Rampuria W/o Shri Hament Rampuria (Jain), R/ o House No.1-Ta-27, Hiran Magri, Sector No.5, Udiapur (Raj.)

¶19

Smt. Basant Prabha W/o Shri Shanti Lal Jain, R/o 52 Main Road, Ashok Nagar, Udiapur (Raj.)

¶20

Shri Dev Dangi S/o Shri Kukaram Dangi, R/o Bhopalmagri, Hiran Magri, Sector No.3, Udiapur (Raj.)

¶21

M/s Silver Spring Construction Private Limited, Through: its Director Shri Premsingh S/o Shri Geesa Singh Chandana, R/o 2 Moti Chotta, Udaipur (Raj.).

¶22

Nagar Vikas Pranyas, Udaipur (Urban Improvement Trust), Through its Secretary, UIT, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶23

[2023/RJJD/010943] (2 of 4) [CFA-258/2013]

¶24

----Respondent

¶25

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. Abhishek Pareek
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Sandeep Saruparia Mr. Nikhil Ajmera
		Mr. Vijay Rajpurohit
		Mr. Rakesh Chotia
		Mr. Prashant Tatia
		Mr. Rajat Rajpurohit
		Mr. Himanshu Bumb

¶26

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order

¶27

19/04/2023

¶28

The present regular appeal has been preferred against the order dated 08.03.2013 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Udaipur in Civil Original Case No.9/2012 whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as preferred by defendants No.2 to 10 has been allowed and as a consequence, the suit for declaration, correction in the revenue record, partition and permanent injunction as preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed.

¶29

The brief facts are that the plaintiffs preferred a suit for the reliefs as abovementioned with a plea that the agricultural lands as mentioned in the plaint were the ancestral properties and being coparceners, they too have a share in the property. Therefore, they prayed for partition of the properties and further prayed for mutation in the revenue records and also for cancellation of the sale deeds and other transfer deeds as executed by the other coparceners in favour of the other defendants.

¶30

An application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was preferred by the defendants No.2 to 10 on two

[2023/RJJD/010943]

[CFA-258/2013]

(3 of 4)

grounds: Firstly, that the reliefs as prayed for specifically pertained to agricultural lands and therefore, a suit before the Civil Court for the said reliefs could not be maintainable. Secondly, Kanna, the father of the plaintiffs, was alive on the date of filing of the suit and therefore, the suit for partition at the behest of the plaintiffs could not be maintained in view of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

¶35

A reply to the said application was preferred on behalf of the plaintiffs and after hearing all the parties, the Court below proceeded on to allow the application and as a consequence, dismissed the suit. The learned Court below, after considering all the earlier judgments on the point in issue, specifically concluded that as the plaintiffs claimed share in the undivided property being agricultural in nature, without a declaration qua the share of the plaintiffs being made by a revenue Court, no consequential relief for cancellation of any document could have been granted by the Civil Court.

¶36

The Court, while considering the settled case laws on the point in the matters of Vijay Singh vs. Buddha; 2012 (2) DNJ Raj. 573 and Kamla Prasad vs. Krishnakant; 2006-07 RRT (Suppl.) 394 , specifically held that unless the relief of declaration is granted by the revenue Court qua the agricultural lands, the consequential relief for cancellation of any document qua the said land can not be granted by the Civil Court.

¶37

The Court further held that the suit for partition of the agricultural lands could also not have been entertained by the Civil Court. Further, the Court also held in favour of the defendants that the suit for partition at the behest of the plaintiffs could not be

[2023/RJJD/010943]

[CFA-258/2013]

(4 of 4)

maintained in view of the specific provision of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

¶42

A perusal of the order impugned as well as the material available on record makes it clear that the mutation entries made in the revenue record in pursuance to the 14 documents executed between the years 2007 to 2011 are under challenge in the present suit. The said documents are in the nature of gift deed, sale deeds, will, release deed and settlement deed. Admittedly, all these documents pertain to agricultural lands. As considered by the Court below, Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, provides that cognizance of any suit or application qua which the relief could be granted by a revenue Court only, could not be taken by a Civil Court. As held in the case of Pyarelal vs. Shubhendra Pilania and Ors.; 2019 (3) SCC 692 , it is the settled proposition of law that unless and until the rights qua an agricultural land are determined by a revenue Court, no consequential relief for cancellation of any document pertaining to the said land can be granted by a Civil Court.

¶43

In view of the well reasoned findings of the learned Court below based on the settled proposition of law, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned and the present appeal is therefore, dismissed . 9. The stay petition as well as all pending applications also stand dismissed.

¶44

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶45

63-Sachin/-

Ratan Lal and Ors. v. Kannaji and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Lal and Ors. v. Kannaji and Ors.

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

State of Rajasthan Vs Amarati Devi

Kishan Lal @ Kishana Ram Vs Kiran Devi

Tarvender Singh Vs Durgaprasad

Bghanwara Ram Vs Jassa Ram

Sohan Lal Vs Sukhdev Singh

Ratanlal Vs Municipal Council