Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mahaveer Lunia vs Vinod Infra Developers Ltd on 31 January, 2025
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2025:RJ-JD:3456]
REPORTABLE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 99/2023
1. Mahaveer Lunia S/o Shri Jawari Lal Lunia, Aged About 50
Years, Resident Of B-32, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
2. Mukesh Lunia S/o Shri Jawari Lal Lunia, Aged About 45
Years, Resident Of B-32, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
3. Lokesh Jain S/o Shri Jawari Lal Lunia, Aged About 33
Years, Resident Of B-32, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
4. Khush Jain S/o Shri Jawari Lal Lunia, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of B-32, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Vinod Infra Developers Ltd., Registered Address- 110,
Adeshwar Tower, 3Rd Chopasni Road, Jodhpur Through
Its Managing Director Shri Vinod Singhvi S/o Shri Umed
Mal Singhvi, Resident Of-3, Pal Link Road, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
3. The Sub Registrar (Iv), Kachahparp Parisar, Jodhpur.
4. Rambhadeep Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Registered Address 1-2,
Khassra No. 775/79 Evergreen Nagar, Aiims Road, Opp.
Kushal Nagar, Shobhavaton Ki Dhani, Jodhpur Through Its
Authorized Director Jitendra Kumar S/o Shri Deep Chand
Sankhla, Resident Of Bhaskar Nagar, Pal Road,
Shobhavaton Ki Dhani, Jodhpur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (2 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saransh Vij
For Respondent(s) : Mr. OP Mehta
Mr. Hem Raj Soni
Mr. Vasu Dev Gaur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
Reserved on :- 16.01.2025
Pronounced on :- 31.01.2025
1. The parties were heard at length. Perused their respective
written arguments.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 14.07.2023
passed in Civil Original Suit No.122/2022 by the learned Additional
District Judge No.7, Jodhpur, whereby, the learned Additional
District Judge refused the prayer of the petitioners to reject the
plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
3. A brief background is that respondent No.1-Vinod Infra
Developers Limited, a company registered under the Companies
Act had brought the aforesaid suit against the petitioners for
declaration of sale in respect of the agricultural land made through
registered deed on 19.07.2022 in favour of the petitioners as null
and void and not affecting the right and interest of the plaintiff.
Further prayer was for permanent injunction to restrain the
defendant-petitioners from developing the said land or making any
construction over that.
4. It is not disputed that the plaintiff-company had purchased
the Khasras mentioned in the plaint ad-measuring 18 Bigha 15
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (3 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
Biswa in village Pal in the District of Jodhpur from different
persons through registered sale-deeds in and around the year
2013. Thereafter, name of the company got recorded in the
revenue records. On 23.05.2014, the Board of Directors of the
Company resolved to authorize Mr. Vinod Singhvi, Managing
Director of the Company and Mr. Mahaveer Lunia, authorized
representative of the Company to sell the suit Khasras.
The resolution reads as follows :
“RESOLVED THAT the board of Directors of the
Company be and hereby authorized Mr. Vinod
Singhvi, Managing Director of the company and
Mr. Mahaveer Luniya Authorised Represtative of
the Company any one of them to sell the 18.15
Bigha Agricultural Land situated at Khasra No.
175, 175/2, 175/4 175/5, 175/6, 175/7, Gram
Pal, Jodhpur in the name of Company.
FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of
Directors of the Company be and is hereby
authorized Mr. Vinod Singhvi, Managing Director
of the Company to execute the Special Power of
Attorney for the registering the sell documents at
the Registrar Department, Jodhpur.
FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of
Directors of the Company be and is hereby
authorized Mr. Vinod Singhvi, Managing Director
of the Company and Mr. Mahaveer Lunilya
Authorised Representative of the Company to do
and perform all such acts, deeds, documents and
things as may be necessary, desirable or
expedient to give effect to this resolution”
5. It is worth to mention here that Mr. Vinod Singhvi, the
Managing Director is the main player of the dispute. Now he is
authorized, to file the referred suit, by the Board of Directors.
Mr. Vinod Singhvi executed a General Power of Attorney in favour
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (4 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
of Mahaveer Lunia on the very next day i.e. 24.05.2014 making a
detailed reference as to how the Khasras were acquired and from
whom it were acquired and authorizing Mahaveer Lunia, one of the
petitioners to sell the aforesaid Khasras of the Company or to
enter into an agreement to sale and receive the consideration
money against valid receipts as well as to execute and register
sale-deeds in respect of those properties.
On 24.05.2014 itself, Mr. Vinod Singhvi, as Managing
Director of the plaintiff-Company, entered into an agreement to
sale the suit property to the petitioners. In the agreement, it is
specifically mentioned that the entire suit property was sold at the
rate of rupees ten lakhs per Bigha, having total consideration
money of rupees seven crore fifty lakhs. There is details of the
cheques, whereby, consideration money was paid are disclosed in
the said agreement and the same makes it evident that the entire
consideration money was already paid through different cheques
on the date of agreement itself and possession of the property
was handed over to the purchasers (petitioners). There is
averment that the land under transfer are free from any
encumbrance nor any other agreement exists in respect of the
said land and it is clear in all respects so far title is concerned. The
agreement clearly stipulates that the vendor/plaintiff would
execute register sale-deed in favour of the purchaser under
agreement or in favour of any other person as desired by the
purchasers under the agreement.
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (5 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
6. Since the original sale-deeds of the sold property was
impounded by the Collector due to non-payment of sufficient
stamp duty, a copy of the same was handed over to the
purchasers. Later-on, on 05.03.2022, all the original sale-deeds
was handed over by the vendor plaintiff to the purchasers. On
21.07.2014, all the Directors of the plaintiff-company executed a
consent paper in favour of the purchaser-defendants stating
therein that by resolution dated 23.05.2014, Director Vinod
Singhvi and authorized representative Mahaveer Lunia were
authorized to execute sale-deed in respect of the suit property.
The plaintiff-company undertakes that in future either the present
office bearer or any shareholder would not challenge the sale
transaction made in favour of the purchaser. The entire
responsibility would be of the company to ensure that the land
may not escape from the possession of the purchaser.
7. On 24.05.2022, the Company suo moto took resolution
without notice to the purchasers under agreement or disclosing
any reason for fresh resolution revoking all the authorizations to
Mr. Vinod Singhvi, Managing Director of the Company and
Mahaveer Lunia as done by Resolution dated 24.05.2014.
The resolution dated 24.05.2022 reads as follows :
“RESOLVED THAT the board of Directors of the
Company be and is hereby revoked the authorization
granted in favour of Mr. Vinod Singhvi, Managing
Director of the company and Mr. Mahaveer Luniya to
sell or do any all in relation to 18 Bigha 15 Biswsa
agricultural Land situated at Khasra No.175, 175/2,
175/4 175/5, 175/6, 175/7, Gram Pal, Jodhpur in the
name of Company.
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (6 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
“FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of Directors
of the Company be and is hereby authorized Mr. Vinod
Singhvi, Managing Director of the Company to
immediately cancel the Power of Attorney Executed on
Dated 24.05.2014 in favour of Shri Mahaveer Luniya.
FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of Directors
of the Company revokes all the authorization granted
to Mr. Vinod Singhvi, Managing Director of the
Company and Mr. Mahaveer Luniya to not do anything
or act in any manner on behalf of the Company. The
Company shall not be bound by any action taken by
them on behalf of the Company, any action taken
undertook by them is hereby cancelled and declared
as non-est.
FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of Directors
of the Company authorized Mr. Vinod Singhvi,
Managing Director of the Company to do and perform
all such acts, deeds, documents and things as may be
necessary, desirable or expedient to give effect to this
resolution”
8. On 27.05.2022, Mr. Vinod Singhvi canceled the General
Power of Attorney in favour of Mahaveer Lunia unilaterally. On
09.07.2022, this cancellation was published in the daily news
paper for notice to the public in general. On 14.07.2022,
Mahaveer Lunia executed the registered sale-deed in pursuance of
authorization and agreement made in the year 2014 by the
plaintiff-company in favour of the petitioners.
9. The action of the plaintiff in unilaterally cancelling the
authorization as well as General Power of Attorney after many
years of the agreement to sale without notice to the beneficiary of
the agreement (petitioners) goes to show malice on the part of
the plaintiff. There is no reason as to why authority of the
Managing Director was revoked and very soon the same Managing
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (7 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
Director was authorized to file the present suit. The action of the
plaintiff speaks volumes against their bonafides and fair play.
10. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 filed the present suit
through the same Vinod Singhvi, the Managing Director for
declaration of the registered sale-deed made in favour of the
petitioners aforesaid as null and void and not binding on the
company. The plaintiff asserted in the plaint that in fact it was a
mortgage transaction and since the loan was for a longer period,
on the insistence of the petitioners, the nature of the document
executed was “an agreement to sale” dated 23.05.2014. It is
further stated that on the insistence of the petitioners mainly for
the reason that the petitioners had shown the aforesaid purchase
transaction in their Book of accounts as well as Income Tax
Return, the plaintiff-company also showed in their Book of
accounts and Income Tax Return that the transaction was a sale
transaction.
11. Besides filing written statement, in the application under
Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. the petitioners clearly stated that suit
was filed with false and concocted statements disclosing no
meaningful cause of action. Hence, the suit was fit to be dismissed
at the preliminary stage as no triable cause of action was
disclosed in the plaint. The petitioners further asserted that the
suit property was agricultural land and on the date of institution of
the suit, the plaintiff-company was not recorded as Khatedar in
the revenue record, therefore, the plaintiff should have sought for
a declaration of Khatedari right first before the Revenue Court only
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (8 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
thereafter, the relief claimed in the plaint was maintainable before
the Civil Court. The petitioners have referred that their name was
mutated in the revenue records on 20.07.2022 in pursuance of the
sale-deed executed in their favour and the suit was filed in
November 2022. The petitioners asserted that court fee was not
paid as per market value of the suit property for cancellation of
sale-deed, therefore, on this ground also, the plaint was fit to be
rejected.
12. The plaintiff-respondents contested the aforesaid prayer and
submitted that since the sale-deed was executed by a person
having no authority or title over the property on the date of sale,
the plaintiff had adjudicable cause. Furthermore, the defendant-
petitioners cannot deny the title of the plaintiff because they claim
to have purchased the property from the plaintiff company. It is
not a case that plaintiff was never recorded as a Khatedar, rather
they were recorded and after registration of the sale-deed under
challenge, the revenue authorities as per their rules got name of
the petitioners mutated. If the sale-deed would be cancelled in the
civil suit, there would be automatic revival of mutation in name of
the plaintiff.
13. The learned trial Court did not consider whether the plaint
was illusionary one or discloses a real cause of action. Regarding
bar of the suit under the law, the trial Judge said that it is a mixed
question of law and fact and would be decided as a issue during
trial.
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (9 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
14. It is worth to mention here that grounds No.(b) and (c) of
Rule 11 Order VII C.P.C. were not available to the petitioners, as
the Court had not directed the plaintiff to correct the valuation
within time specified by the Court or to pay deficit court fee within
time specified by the Court.
15. In the plaint, the plaintiff has admitted execution of the
agreement to sale with the petitioners and acceptance of the
consideration money through cheques in their bank account. They
have further admitted that possession of sold land was
handed-over over to the petitioners at the time of agreement
itself. There is no cheat of paper even to remotely suggest that
the transaction between the parties in respect of the suit property
was a mortgage transaction as no repayment of money was
secured.
16. Now, the question arises whether the averment made in the
plaint discloses a real cause of action or is result of clever drafting
which creates illusion of cause of action. Identical issue was
considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dahiben Vs.
Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra)(D) THR LRS & Ors.
reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366. The relevant paragraphs are
being reproduced below :
“12.7 The test for exercising the power under Order
VII Rule 11 is that if the averments made in the
plaint are taken in entirety, in conjunction with the
documents relied upon, would the same result in a
decree being passed. This test was laid down in
Liverpool & London S.P. & I Assn. Ltd. v. M.V.Sea
Success I & Anr., [(2004) 9 SCC 512] which reads
as :
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (10 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
“139. Whether a plaint discloses a cause of
action or not is essentially a question of fact.
But whether it does or does not must be
found out from reading the plaint itself. For
the said purpose, the averments made in
the plaint in their entirety must be held to
be correct. The test is as to whether if the
averments made in the plaint are taken to
be correct in their entirety, a decree would
be passed.”
In Hardesh Ores (P.) Ltd. v. Hede & Co. [(2007) 5
SCC 614] the Court further held that it is not
permissible to cull out a sentence or a passage, and
to read it in isolation. It is the substance, and not
merely the form, which has to be looked into. The
plaint has to be construed as it stands, without
addition or subtraction of words. If the allegations in
the plaint prima facie show a cause of action, the
court cannot embark upon an enquiry whether the
allegations are true in fact [(D.Ramachandran v. R.V.
Janakiraman, {(1999) 3 SCC 267}].
12.8 If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, it is
found that the suit is manifestly vexatious and
without any merit, and does not disclose a right to
sue, the court would be justified in exercising the
power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
12.9 The power under Order VII Rule 11 CPC may be
exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit,
either before registering the plaint, or after issuing
summons to the defendant, or before conclusion of
the trial, as held by this Court in the judgment of
Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 1 SCC
557]. The plea that once issues are framed, the
matter must necessarily go to trial was repelled by
this Court in Azhar Hussain.
12.10 The provision of Order VII Rule 11 is
mandatory in nature. It states that the plaint “shall”
be rejected if any of the grounds specified in clause
(a) to (e) are made out. If the Court finds that the
plaint does not disclose a cause of action, or that the
suit is barred by any law, the Court has no option,
but to reject the plaint. “Cause of action” means
every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff
to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to
judgment. It consists of a bundle of material facts,
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (11 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
which are necessary for the plaintiff to prove in
order to entitle him to the reliefs claimed in the suit.
In Swamy Atmanand v. Sri Ramakrishna
Tapovanam [(2005) 10 SCC 51] this Court held :
“24. A cause of action, thus, means
every fact, which if traversed, it would
be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in
order to support his right to a judgment
of the court. In other words, it is a
bundle of facts, which taken with the
law applicable to them gives the plaintiff
a right to relief against the defendant. It
must include some act done by the
defendant since in the absence of such
an act, no cause of action can possibly
accrue. It is not limited to the actual
infringement of the right sued on but
includes all the material facts on which it
is founded”
In T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr.
[(1977) 4 SCC 467] this Court held that while
considering an application under Order VII Rule 11
CPC what is required to be decided is whether the
plaint discloses a real cause of action, or something
purely illusory, in the following words :-
“5….The learned Munsiff must
remember that if on a meaningful –
not formal – reading of the plaint it is
manifestly vexatious, and meritless,
in the sense of not disclosing a clear
right to sue, he should exercise his
power under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.
taking care to see that the ground
mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if
clever drafting has created the
illusion of a cause of action, nip it in
the bud at the first hearing…”
Subsequently, in I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debt Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, [(1998) 2 SCC 70] this Court
held that law cannot permit clever drafting which
creates illusions of a cause of action. What is
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (12 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
required is that a clear right must be made out in
the plaint.
If, however, by clever drafting of the plaint, it
has created the illusion of a cause of action, this
Court in Madanuri Sri Ramachandra Murthy v. Syed
Jalal [(2017) 13 SCC 174] held that it should be
nipped in the bud, so that bogus litigation will end at
the earliest stage.
The Court must be vigilant against any
camouflage or suppression, and determine whether
the litigation is utterly vexatious, and an abuse of
the process of the court.”
17. In the case of Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Ors. Vs.
Assistant Charity Comisioner and Ors. reported in AIR 2004
SC 1801, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated the law for
appreciation of disclosure of real cause of action as follows :
“10. In Saleem Bhai and Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. [(2003) 1 SCC 557] it
was held with reference to Order VII Rule 11 of
the Code that the relevant facts which need to
be looked into for deciding an application
thereunder are the averments in the plaint.
The trial Court can exercise the power at any
stage of the suit before registering the plaint or
after issuing summons to the defendant at any
time before the conclusion of the trial. For the
purposes of deciding an application under
Clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code, the averments in the plaint are the
germane: the pleas taken by the defendant in
the written statement would be wholly
irrelevant at that stage.
11. I.T.C. Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal and Ors. [(1998) 2 SCC 70] it was
held that the basic question to be decided while
dealing with an application filed under Order
VII Rule 11 of the Code is whether a real cause
of action has been set out in the plaint or
something purely illusory has been stated with(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (13 of 22) [CR-99/2023]a view to get out of Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code.
12. The trial Court must remember that if on a
meaningful and not formal reading of the plaint
it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the
sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it
should exercise the power under Order VII Rule
11 of the Code taking care to see that the
ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever
drafting has created the illusion of a cause of
action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the
first hearing by examining the party
searchingly under Order X of the Code.
13. It is trite law that not any particular plea
has to be considered, and the whole plaint has
to be read. As was observed by this Court in
Roop Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill [(1982) 3
SCC 487], only a part of the plaint cannot be
rejected and if no cause of action is disclosed,
the plaint as a whole must be rejected.
14. In Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. Ganesh
Property [(1998) 7 SCC 184] it was observed
that the averments in the plaint as a whole
have to be seen to find out whether Clause (d)
of Rule 11 of Order VII was applicable.
15. There cannot be any
compartmentalization, dissection, segregation
and inversions of the language of various
paragraphs in the plaint. If such a course is
adopted it would run counter to the cardinal
canon of interpretation according to which a
pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain
its true import. It is not permissible to cull out
a sentence or a passage and to read it out of
the context in isolation. Although it is the
substance and not merely the form that has to
be looked into, the pleading has to be
construed as it stands without addition or
subtraction or words or change of its apparent
grammatical sense. The intention of the party
concerned is to be gathered primarily from the
tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a
whole. At the same time should be borne in
mind that no pedantic approach should be(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (14 of 22) [CR-99/2023]adopted to defeat Justice on hair-splitting
technicalities.”
18. Mr. Saransh Vij, learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that ground Nos. (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 are available for
rejection of the plaint. It is plaintiff’s case that the plaintiff
company is engaged in purchase and sale of land as well as
development of colonies and infrastructure. In the ordinary course
of business, the plaintiff company resolved on 23.05.2014
(referred above) to sale the suit property and authorized the
Managing Director, who has filed the suit on behalf of the company
as well as to one of the petitioner, who was authorized agent of
the company, to sell the property. The resolution would make it
abundantly clear that the company had not decided to transfer the
suit property in any other manner including mortgage. The
Managing Director had entered into an agreement to sale the suit
property with the petitioners. The agreement paper would reveal
that entire consideration money was paid through cheque and in
the plaint, the plaintiff has admitted that the cheque amount was
transferred to its Bank Account. The agreement further reveals
that possession of the suit property was also handed over to the
petitioners. Only thing that was left to be done was registration of
the sale deed in the name of the petitioners or in the name of any
other person as desired by the petitioners. There is no chit of
paper even to remotely suggest that the transaction between the
parties was in the nature of mortgage to secure repayment of
money, rather, the Book of accounts and Income Tax Returns of
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (15 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
the plaintiff would show that the receipt of consideration money
was accepted as sale proceeds of the immovable property.
19. Therefore, evidently by clever drafting, the plaintiff has
ventured to make out a case of deal between the parties as
mortgage deal and has imaginarily stated that the sale transaction
was shown under pressure of the petitioners as it was a long term
loan and petitioners were pressurizing for substantial document to
ensure security of loan.
20. Mr. O.P. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents contends
that meticulous evaluation of the plaint is not permissible at this
stage, rather, if the plaint discloses cause of action, on
consideration of bundle of facts disclosed in the plaint, the Courts
should go with the trial as has been done by the learned trial
Judge.
21. Keeping the aforesaid guidelines on fore and on
consideration of the plaint and the documents not disputed by the
plaintiff, it is crystal clear that the transaction between the parties
was a sale transaction. After execution of the agreement to sale
and till filing of the suit, no notice was given to the petitioners
disclosing the fact that transaction was a mortgage transaction nor
any chit of paper is there to even remotely accept the claim of the
plaintiff that the transaction between the parties was a mortgage
transaction. A perusal of the plaint would show that it was cleverly
drafted to abuse the judicial proceeding and imaginarily asserted
that the entire documents which depicts a case of sale transaction
was executed under pressure of the petitioners as they were
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (16 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
insisting for security of their long term loan. The resolution of the
Board of Directors dated 24.05.2014 above depicts that the
authorization to the Managing Director was for sale only of the suit
property and not for transfer by any other mode including
mortgage. The Books of account and I.T. Returns of the plaintiff
discloses a sale transaction. Likewise, in the resolution of the
company dated 24.05.2022, it is reiterated that by resolution
dated 24.05.2014, the company has decided to sale only the suit
property. Evidently, no document is there on the record to
substantiate that the transaction between the parties was a
mortgage transaction. In the circumstance, the plaintiff cannot be
allowed to abuse the process of law with a cooked up and
vexatious litigation. Admittedly, these documents were not result
of any pressure of the petitioners. Evidently, the plaint does not
disclose a real cause of action, rather something purely illusionary
has been cleverly drafted in the plaint making out a case for the
suit. On a meaningful reading of the plaint, the suit appears
manifestly vexatious and does not disclose a right to sue, rather
frivolous grounds have been stated in the plaint. Hence, the plaint
is fit to be rejected under Clause (a) of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.
and accordingly stands rejected.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contends that
Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act read with Schedule III
of the said Act clearly stipulates that a suit for declaration of
Khatedari right is cognizable only by a Revenue Court and not by a
Civil Court. Unless the plaintiff would have got a decree for
declaration of their Khatedari right, the present suit is barred
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (17 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
under the law. It is not disputed that the suit property was
agricultural land and the plaintiff had paid stamp duty at the time
of purchase showing the land as agricultural land. It is also
admitted that on the date of institution of the suit, plaintiff was
not a recorded Khatedar in the revenue records.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on
the following judgments :
Sr. Parties Citation Delivered By
No.
01 Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (2019) 3 SCC 692 Hon'ble Supreme
(Minor) THR. Natural Guardian Court
(Father) Pradeep Kumar Pilania
and Others
02 Rajasthan State Shriganganagar S.B. Civil First Hon'ble Rajasthan
Sugar Mills Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Ajeet Appeal No.1/2023 High Court,
Singh & Ors. Jodhpur
03 Romel Singh Panwar Vs. Smt. S.B. Civil First Hon'ble Rajasthan
Amarjeet Kaur & Ors. Appeal No.12/2024 High Court,
Jodhpur
04 Sunil & Ors. Vs. Ostwal Phoschem S.B. Civil First Hon'ble Rajasthan
(India) Ltd. & Ors. Appeal High Court,
No.215/2023 Jodhpur
05 Rukmani Vs. Bhola & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Hon'ble Rajasthan
Appeal High Court, Jaipur
No.553/1993 Bench
06 Smt. Kamli Devi Vs. Smt. S.B. Civil First Hon'ble Rajasthan
Rampyari & Ors. Appeal High Court, Jaipur
No.280/2022 Bench
07 Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. Gulab S.B. Civil Second Hon'ble Rajasthan
Singh & Ors. Appeal High Court,
No.233/2018 Jodhpur
Since, no contrary view has been taken herein to what is
decided in the aforesaid judgments, hence, require no elaborate
discussion.
24. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in fact on
the alleged date of sale in favour of the petitioners, the plaintiff
was recorded as tenant in respect of suit property. Moreover, the
petitioners claim to have purchased the suit property from the
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (18 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
plaintiff, therefore, the petitioners cannot deny the title of the
plaintiff. In that situation, the plaintiff was not required to get
declaration of Khatedari right for the reason that as soon as the
unauthorized sale deed is cancelled, the Khatedari of the plaintiff
would automatically revive.
25. Relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act are as
follows :
“207. Suits and applications cognizable by
revenue court only-
(1) All suits and applications of the nature
specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard
and determined by a revenue court.
(2) No court other than a revenue court shall
take cognizance of any such suit or application
or of any suit or application based on a cause of
action in respect of which any relief could be
obtained by means of any such suit or
application.
Explanation-If the cause of action is one in
respect of which relief might be granted by the
revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief
asked for from the civil court is greater than, or
additional to, or is not identical with, that which
the revenue court have granted.”
THE THIRD SCHEDULE
S.No. Section Description of Suit, Period of Time from Proper Court officer
of Act application or limitation which Court Competent to
appeal period Fees dispose of
begins to
run.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PART I - SUITS
5. 88 Suit for declaration None None [One Assistant
of the plaintiff's Rupee] Collector
right:-
(i) as a tenant, or
(ii) as a tenant of
khudkasht, or
(iii) as a sub-
tenant, or
(iv) for a share in a
joint tenancy
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (19 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
Section 88 of the Act reads as follows :
“88. Suit for declaration of right-(1) Any
person claiming to be a tenant or a co-tenant
may sue for a declaration that he is a tenant
or for a declaration of his share in such joint
tenancy.
(2) A tenant of Khudkasht may sue for a
declaration that he is such a tenant.
(3) A sub-tenant may sue the person from
whom he holds for a declaration that he is a
sub-tenant.
(4) A landholder other than the State
Government may sue a person claiming to be
a tenant or co-tenant of a holding or a tenant
of Khudkasht or a sub-tenant for a
declaration of the right of such person.”
26. The respondents cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at
the same time. Once the plaintiff/respondent came up with a case
that the agent of the company, who was earlier authorized to
execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property, was not
authorized to execute the sale deed on the date of execution of
the sale deed, as his authority was already revoked, the sale was
bad as the company was not a party to the sale transaction. In
view of the aforesaid stand, the plaintiff company claims not to be
a party to the sale transaction, therefore, for setting aside the
impugned sale deed, the third party to the sale-deed i.e. plaintiff-
company must have title to the property which could have been
asserted only on declaration of their title in respect of the
agricultural land by a Competent Revenue Court only and unless
the plaintiff, who was not a recorded Khatedar on the date of
institution of the suit, gets such declaration by a Revenue Court,
the suit before the Civil Court was barred under Section 207 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act.
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (20 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
27. The respondents have relied upon following cases :
(i) Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited VS. S.P.
Velayutham reported in 2022 8 SCC 210; (ii) Liverpool & London
S.P. & I. Asson. Ltd. Vs. M.V. Sea Success I and Anr. reported in
2004 9 SCC 512; (iii) Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh Vs. Randhir
Singh reported in 2010 0 AIR (SC) 2807; (iv) Kamala Bai and Ors.
Vs. Mohan Lal and Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.21/2023
(Raj.); (v) Sundar Lal Soni Vs. Durga Shankar and Ors. (S.B. Civil
Revision Petition No.53/2024 (Raj.); (vi) Shri Ram and Ors. Vs.
ADJ and Ors. reported in AIR 2001 SC 1250; (vii) Bismillah Vs.
Janeshwar Prasad reported in 1990 0 AIR SC 540; (viii) Narendra
Kumar Mittal Vs. Nupur Housing Development reported in 2020 20
SCC 158; (ix) Shyam Kumar Vs. Budh Singh reported in 1977 AIR
RAJ 238; (x) Sanganer Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Janki Devi and Ors.
reported in 2013 1 DNJ 358; (xi) Ganesh Ram Vs. Lota Ram and
Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.45/2021 (Raj.); (xii) Nakki
Devi Vs. Rohit Bhatara and Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition
No.36/2016 (Raj.); (xiii) Mani Ram Vs. Mamkori and Ors. reported
in 2021 2 DNJ Raj 610; (xiv) Rajendra Kumbhat Vs. Devi and Ors.
reported in 2015 (2) RLW 1530 Raj; (xv) Sushil Kumar Vs. M.B.
Sangariya and Ors. (S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.455/2006
(Raj.); (xvi) Harmeet Singh Dhillon Vs. Randeep Dhillon (S.B. CR
Petition No.233/2011 (Raj.); (xvii) Amrit Lal and Ors. Vs. Heera
Ram reported in 2016 3 DNJ 1151; (xviii) Laxminarayan Vs.
Ramswaroop and Ors. reported in 2017 4 WLN 98 RAJ and (xix)
Kiran Devi Vs. Nirmala Joshi reported in 2012 3 WLN 115 Raj.
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (21 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
28. In view of the conclusions reached above, the discussion of
the referred judgments would be academic only as the issues
considered therein are not directly involved here at. In Asset
Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (supra), the provisions of
Section 32 and 33 of the Indian Registration Act was considered
and it was held that if the document was not produced for
registration by the competent persons referred therein, the
registration would be void. Evidently, the petitioners who were
claiming under the documents are also competent to produce the
same for registration.
29. In Liverpool & London S.P. & I. Asson. Limited‘s case (supra),
it was held that whether the plaint discloses a cause of action or
not is to be find out on reading of the plaint as a whole. As has
been noticed above, on reading of the plaint as a whole, it appears
that an illusionary cause of action was disclosed and not a real
cause of action, which a sine quo non for sustenance of the plaint.
30. In Suhrid Singh‘s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that where the executant of a deed wants to annul it, he has
to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks
annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is
invalid or non est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him.
31. There is no dispute in proposition of law laid down, however,
the law is clear that when a non-executant challenges the deed,
he has to plead and prove his title. In the State of Rajasthan, for
declaration of title in respect of agricultural land as in the present
case, jurisdiction is vested with the Revenue Court. Section 207 of
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3456] (22 of 22) [CR-99/2023]
the Rajasthan Tenancy Act clearly speaks that in the matter of
different declaration in respect of agricultural land, the jurisdiction
of Civil Court is barred.
32. In Pyarelal’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
considered and held that when the plaintiff was not a recorded
Khatedar in respect of the agricultural land on the date of
institution of the suit, he has to first get his Khatedari right
declared by the Revenue Court and only thereafter suit for
cancellation of gift deed was maintainable before the Civil Court.
In view of Pyarelal’s judgment (supra), some of the cases decided
by the High Court and relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondents (supra) are not binding on this Court.
33. Since, this Court has already found that the plaint discloses
no real cause of action, as such, the plaint was fit to be rejected.
Hence, there is no reason to allow liberty to the plaintiff to go
before the Revenue Court for declaration of Khatedari right.
Consequently, the impugned order stands hereby set aside and
the plaint stands rejected.
34. Accordingly, the instant civil revision stands allowed.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
deep/-
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 12:11:11 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
