Petitioners challenged dismissal of their Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application seeking rejection of a suit declaring registered sale deeds void as fraudulent. The High Court held respondents sought relief beyond revenue court jurisdiction and upheld the trial court's order, dismissing the revision.
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.
[2024:RJ-JP:9234]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 179/2016
----Petitioners
Versus
(2 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JP:9234]
[CR-179/2016]
(Bakliwal), R/o House No. 2976, Moti Singh Bhomiyon Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajan Prajapati, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parag Rastogi, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 23/02/2024
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 10.02.2016 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil suit No.17/2015, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
[2024:RJ-JP:9234]
[CR-179/2016]
(3 of 4)
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed a civil suit for declaring the registered sale deed dated 25.10.2012 which was registered in Sub-Registrar Office Bassi on 26.10.2012 as null and void and they also sought the relief of permanent injunction regarding disputed revenue land. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioners had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but trial court vide order dated 10.02.2016 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 wanted to declare the sale deed dated 25.10.2012 as null and void and also sought the permanent injunction. The said dispute is related to revenue land and as per Section 207 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, revenue court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. So, order passed by the trial court be set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Rajasthan State Shriganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ajeet Singh & Ors. in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.1/2023 decided on 29.03.2023 and (2) Banwari Vs. Anup in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.228/2019 decided on 31.10.2023 .
Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 wanted to declare the so-called sale deed as null and void because these sale deeds were executed by fraud. He also submits that respondents are not seeking relief as contained in 3rd Schedule of Land Revenue Act.
[2024:RJ-JP:9234]
[CR-179/2016]
(4 of 4)
So, Section 207 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act is not applicable in the present matter. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that issue regarding jurisdiction is a mixed question of law and fact. So, the trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. So, revision petition be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents.
Trial court while dismissing the application filed by the petitioners clearly mentioned that the respondents sought the so-called sale deed as null and void on account of being executed by fraud. Trial court also mentioned that respondents are not seeking relief which to be given by the revenue court. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners. So, present revision petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /Tahir/12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the civil court had jurisdiction over a suit challenging sale deeds over revenue land, or whether Section 207 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act barred it.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajasthan State Shriganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ajeet Singh & Ors. in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.1/2023 decided on 29.03.2023Referred
Banwari Vs. Anup in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.228/2019 decided on 31.10.2023Referred
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Radhey Shyam
Ramesh Chand Kumhar Son Of Shri Praabhu Dayal Kumhar
Bhagatram Meena Son Of Shri Ramnath Meena
Nanagram Meena Son Of Shri Ramgopal Meena
Parshvnath Digamber Jain Jan Kalyan Trust, Bassi
Rajesh Kumar Kasliwal
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
