Sohan Singh vs Rajkidevi (2025:Rj-Jd:33456) on 29 July, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Sohan Singh vs Rajkidevi (2025:Rj-Jd:33456) on 29 July, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:33456]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 229/2023

Sohan Singh S/o Shri Devisingh, Aged About 35 Years, B/c
Dasana,      R/o     Rawalitalai,       Nathela,         Tehsil    Garhbor,    Dist.
Rajsamand (Raj.)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       Rajkidevi D/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, W/o Shri Kishan
         Singh, B/c Kharwad Rajput, R/o Thali Ki Bhagal Antaliya,
         Tehsil Garhbor, At Present R/o Jud Kivadli, Sunkhar, Tehsil
         Garhbor, Dist. Rajsamand.
2.       Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Lacha Singh, Aged About 80
         Years, B/c Kharwad Rajput, R/o Thali Ki Bhagal Antaliya,
         Tehsil Garhbor, Dist. Rajsamand.
3.       Rata D/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 52 Years, W/o
         Shri Mangu Singh, B/c Dasana, R/o Thali Ki Bhagal
         Antaliya, Tehsil Garhbor, Dist. Rajsamand. At Present R/o
         Vanadar, Tehsil Garhbor, Dist. Rajsamand.
4.       Sohan Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh Kharwad, Aged
         About 48 Years, R/o Thali Ki Bhagal Antaliya, Tehsil
         Garhbor, Dist. Rajsamand.
5.       Sosar D/o Shri Bhanwar Singh Kharwad, Aged About 46
         Years, W/o Shri Kishan Singh Parmar, , R/o Thali Ki
         Bhagal Antaliya, Tehsil Garhbor, Dist. Rajsamand. At
         Present R/o Janawad, Tehsil Garhbor, Dist. Rajsamand.
6.       Lali D/o Shri Bhanwar Singh Kharwad, Aged About 44
         Years, W/o Shri Sohan Singh Dasana, R/o Thali Ki Bhagal
         Antaliya, Tehsil Garhbor, At Present R/o Rawali Talai,
         Tehsil Garhbor And Dist. Rajsamand.
7.       Mangu Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh Kharwad, Aged
         About 42 Years, R/o Thali Ki Bhagal Antaliya, Tehsil
         Garhbor, Dist. Rajsamand.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Vikram Sharma
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Avin Chhangani & Mr. Avinash
                                  Bhati for Respondent No. 3 to 7




                       (Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:47:23 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:33456]                   (2 of 7)                            [CR-229/2023]


      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

Order

29/07/2025
By the instant revision petition under Section 115 CPC,

petitioner-defendant has assailed order dated 18.10.2023, passed

by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajsamand (for short, ‘learned

trial Court’) in Civil Original Case No.05/2023, whereby learned

trial Court, by the order impugned, rejected application of the

petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

2. Succinctly stated the fact of case that on 05.04.2023, the

respondent no.1- plaintiff has filed a suit before Senior Civil Judge,

Rajsamand for cancellation of sale deed dated 03.03.2023 as null

and void and sought permanent injunction against petitioner-

defendant. It was inter alia alleged in the plaint that the

agriculture land bearing khata Nos. 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283

and 284 ad-measuring about 6.2594 hectare situated in village

Antaliya Patwar Circle, Antaliya, Tehsil Garhbor, District Rajsamand

was recorded in the name of Bhanwar Singh/respondent no.2 in

revenue record is an ancestral land. The respondent no.1 further

alleged that the respondent no.2 is not the sole owner of the said

agriculture land as land is ancestral and she has acquired right of

equal share by birth in ancestral agriculture land as per the

provision of Hindu Succession Act. The respondent no.2 has sold

the said agriculture land vide registered sale deed dated

03.03.2023 in favour of the petitioner-defendant no.1 and when

this fact came to her knowledge, she preferred a suit before the

(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:47:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33456] (3 of 7) [CR-229/2023]

Senior Civil Judge, Rajsamanad against the petitioner-defendant

no.1 and other respondents (defendants).

3. The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11

CPC inter alia with the submissions that as the subject matter of

the said deed, of which cancellation is being sought, is an

agricultural land, as such the suit is barred under Section 207 of

the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and prayed for its dismissal.

4. The trial court after hearing the parties, by its impugned

order dated 18.10.2023 rejected the application of the defendant.

Being dissatisfied with the order impugned, the petitioner

defendant has moved the instant revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant while assailing

the impugned order dated 18.10.2023 contended that the

respondent-plaintiff instituted the suit seeking cancellation of a

registered sale deed dated 03.03.2023 as null and void on the

premise that the suit land is agricultural land and jurisdiction to

adjudicate the dispute pertaining to agricultural land vests

exclusively with the Revenue Court. It is further submitted that as

per Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the Revenue

Court possesses the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine

disputes concerning agricultural land. Reliance was placed on

judgment in the case of Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania : (2019) 3

SCC 692.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff

contended that the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the

application preferred by the petitioner-defendant under Order VII

Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is submitted that as the

(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:47:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33456] (4 of 7) [CR-229/2023]

sole relief sought in the suit pertained to the cancellation of the

sale deed and a declaration of its nullity, the jurisdiction for such

cancellation exclusively rests with the Civil Court. Thus, it is

prayed that the instant revision petition merits dismissal. In

support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent has

placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of

Balkesh Vs. Vimla & Ors. decided on 27.05.2024 in S.B.

Civil Revision Petition No.186/2015.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

8. The trial court vide order impugned dated 18.10.2023

rejected the application of the defendant solely on the premise

that the relief sought by the plaintiff falls under the jurisdiction of

the civil court as the jurisdiction to declare any document illegal

and void is only and only with the civil court.

9. Thus, the only issue which arises for consideration in the

present case is that whether the civil court has the jurisdiction to

decide the suit pertaining to agricultural land in light of provisions

of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955?

10. As per the averments made in the plaint, the instrument is a

voidable document which is sought to be declared as null and

void. In deciding an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC, only

the averments contained in the plaint are to be considered. In

Maniram vs Mamkori reported in 2021(2) DNJ (Raj.) 610, this

Court held as under:-

“10.The said nature averments and the implication of
such averments have been considered by this Court in

(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:47:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33456] (5 of 7) [CR-229/2023]

the case of Hasti Cement (supra), wherein it was laid
down as under:-

21. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it can be
safely concluded that if the allegation in the
plaint/substance of the allegations in the plaint allege
the instrument to be void and no cancellation is required
and without seeking such cancellation the relief of
declaration pertaining to tenancy rights with regard to
the agricultural land in question can be obtained by the
plaintiff, only the revenue courts would have jurisdiction
to deal with the subject matter of the suit and
consequently the jurisdiction of civil courts would be
barred. However, if the allegations made in the plaint
make out a case of document being voidable, relief of
cancellation of such a voidable document can only be
granted by civil court and irrespective of the fact that
the instrument pertains to agricultural land, the suit
would not be barred under Section 207 of the Tenancy
Act. Therefore, the trial court in each case, where a
issue in this regard is raised, based on the stage of the
suit i.e. either based on the plaint averments or the
evidence available on record would have to come to a
conclusion as to whether the facts as alleged, if
established or as established in a case where evidence
has been led makes the instrument void or voidable and
decide accordingly.”

It was further laid down in relation to a case where the

challenge laid to the transfer was on account of the fact that the

land in question was joint family property and that the transfer

was made beyond the share of the transferor, it was further laid

down as under:-

“25. In view of the above discussion, the present case
needs to be examined wherein, as noticed hereinbefore,
the declaration has been sought in the plaint seeking
cancellation of sale deed to the extent of share of the
plaintiff on account of the fact that the suit property being
ancestral joint Hindu property the transfer was made
without any reason, basis or necessity.

26. On the said aspect, while the judgment in the case of
Sangram Singh (supra) laid down that such a sale would
be void and, therefore, the suit would be triable by
revenue court only, in later judgment in the case of
Bhopal Singh (supra) it was laid down that such a sale
would be voidable and not void. For the said proposition,
reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:47:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33456] (6 of 7) [CR-229/2023]

Court in the case of Raghubanchmani (supra) and a
unreported judgment in the case of Longram vs. Jaipal
Singh : Civil Revision Petition No.153/1971 decided on
29/7/1971, taking different view was held as not a good
law in view of the Supreme Court judgment, for the same
reasons the judgment in the case of Sangram Singh
(supra) also cannot be said to be a good law though the
judgment in the case of Sangram Singh was not cited in
the case of Bhopal Singh (supra). Relevant portion of the
judgment dealing with the said aspect reads as under:

“13. In view of the decision in Raghubanchamani’s
case AIR 1971 SC 776, the sale-deed made by the
plaintiff’s father, who is defendant No. 5, in favour
of the defendants Nos. 1 and 4 (petitioners) is
voidable as according to the plaintiff it was without
legal necessity and under Section 31(1) of the
Specific Relief Act, when the plaintiff has reasonable
apprehension that the sale-deed if left outstanding,
may cause him serious injury, it became necessary
for him to have it adjudged, (5 of 5) [CR-72/2019]
void or voidable. The cancellation of the saledeed,
being the main relief in the suit, can only be
granted by a Civil Court. Learned counsel for the
petitioners cannot, in my opinion, derive any benefit
from the decision in Jagansingh’s case 1973 Raj LW

674. In Longram’s case Civil Revn. No. 153 of 1971,
D/- 29-7-1971 Raj) (supra) the learned Judge took
the view that the sale by the father of undivided
coparcenary property is void in the absence of the
legal necessity and the prayer for cancellation of the
sale-deed is not very material, and further that the
suit was essentially for possession of agricultural
land. The sale by the father of the plaintiff in the
case before me is voidable according to the decision
in Raghubanchamani’s case AIR 1971 SC 776. I
regret my inability to agree with the view taken in
Longram’s case and it is no more a good law after
Raghubanchamani’s case.”

27. In view of the above, the law laid down in the case of
Bhopal Singh (supra) holding the instrument of the
present nature as voidable, suit apparently is
maintainable before the civil court and in view thereof the
order passed by the trial court cannot be faulted.”

11. Further, this Court while relying on the judgment in the case

of Hasti Cement (supra) rejected an application under Order VII

Rule 11 CPC in the case of Hemant Godara & Anr. Vs.

Banwarilal & Ors. (SB Civil First Appeal No.180/2016)

decided on 10.09.2020 observing that, in case, the allegations

made in the plaint make out a case of the transfer being voidable,

(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:47:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33456] (7 of 7) [CR-229/2023]

only the civil courts would have jurisdiction, irrespective of the

fact that the subject-matter of the transfer is an agricultural land.

In view thereof, as apparently the issue as raised in the plaint

pertains to the sale deed being voidable, the civil court had

jurisdiction to try the said suit and the bar created by Section 207

of the Act of 1955, had no application.

12. Upon a comprehensive examination of the precedents cited

hereinabove and a meticulous appraisal of the legal position, it

may be conclusively articulated that the civil court is vested with

the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate disputes

pertaining to the cancellation of a sale deed that is voidable in

nature. Thus, this court is of considered opinion that learned Court

below has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the

application of the petitioner-defendant under Order VII Rule 11

CPC. The impugned order has neither occasioned in any failure of

justice, nor there is any material irregularity in exercise of

jurisdiction by learned trial Court.

13. Accordingly, the revision petition fails and the same is hereby

rejected. Stay petition also stands disposed of.

(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J
131-T.Singh/-

(Downloaded on 31/07/2025 at 09:47:23 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)