courses

The limits of civil jurisdiction in land disputes: A study of Vinod Infra Developers vs. Mahaveer Lunia (2025)

August 13, 2025

This article is written by Adv. Kunal Sinha. He holds eight years of experience in litigation and dispute resolution and represents clients before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court, NCLT, NCDRC, and other forums. He is a panel counsel for leading institutes and handles high-stakes commercial, civil and arbitration matters across sectors, including real estate, pharmaceuticals and education.

Introduction

In the recent case of Vinod Infra Developers vs. Mahaveer Lunia (2025), the Hon’ble Supreme Court adjudicated an appeal against an order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan. The core issue of the case was whether a civil court can decide a case related to ownership rights, which also includes tenancy law governed by the revenue court.

Along with this issue, the jurisdiction of the civil court was also discussed, especially in cases where there are overlapping chances with the revenue courts’ power under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955.

Lastly, this judgment also elaborated the grounds for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule XI Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a key procedural point for anyone practising civil law.

Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Land Disputes

Civil Courts have jurisdiction to discuss matters related to title, inheritance, partition, declaration concerning immovable property, including agricultural land, unless any law says otherwise.

For example, under Rule 202 of the UP Revenue Code, 2006, civil courts are not allowed to deal with matters related to land revenue assessment or collection.

There are several other factors that lead to jurisdictional challenges. Let’s explore some.

Jurisdictional Overlap with other forums

The civil courts’ jurisdiction is more often contested, especially in revenue-related matters. That is because the revenue courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters. For instance, Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, explicitly bars the civil courts from entertaining any suit involving tenancy rights. In case a party approaches the civil court for declaratory relief over the property without following the mandatory requirement of declaration of tenancy rights, then other parties may contest such a suit on lack of jurisdiction.

In this context, placing reliance on Pyare Lal vs Subhendra Piliania and Others (2019), emphasis is placed on the jurisdictional bar imposed by the statute. The dispute involved the appellant seeking cancellation of the gift deed without obtaining khatedari rights from the appropriate revenue authority. Therefore, the Apex Court observed, the appellant could not seek a declaration without obtaining khatedari rights from the competent revenue authority.

Lack of jurisdiction demarcation

At times, the legislature fails to demarcate between civil and other jurisdictions, particularly in cases where mixed questions of judicial and administrative relief are involved, resulting in jurisdictional challenges between civil and other forums with similar jurisdiction.

Formulation of special laws

Generally, the concern regarding formulation of special laws are based on lack of specific attention to the distinct nature of dispute and subject matters, which requires establishment of a specialized forum, as before enactment of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, disputes concerning flat allotment of flats were addressed by consumer forums, placing flatbuyers alongside ordinary consumers seeking refunds for defective goods. This led to disproportionate and inefficient adjudication of issues.

For instance, special laws often establish specialised forums dedicated to adjudicate issues exclusively falling within their domain, thereby ensuring subject matter expertise and procedural efficiency, such as the Debt Recovery Tribunal under The Recovery Of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 illustrates a specialised forum, thereby matters exclusively triable by the Debt Recovery Tribunal fall outside the purview of civil courts.

What happened in Vinod Infra Developers vs. Mahaveer Lunia, 2025

Background

In this case, the Vinod Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership rights over agricultural land. The land in controversy had been transferred through a sale deed executed by Mahaveer Lunia (Respondent no. 1) in his own favour and in favour of other respondents. The execution of the sale deed was based on an unregistered Power of Attorney and an agreement to sell, forming the most contentious aspect of the dispute.

Meanwhile, respondents moved an application under Order VII Rule XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the Plaint on the various grounds, including Non-disclosure of cause of action, no mortgage existed, incorrect valuation and insufficient court fees. The Additional District Judge, Jodhpur, dismissed the application in limine (at the outset). However, the High Court, in a revision petition, reversed the order passed by the Additional District Judge. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Vinod Infra Developers Ltd. (appellant) brought a civil appeal before the Apex Court.

Findings of the Apex Court

The Apex Court in the civil appeal examined the interplay between the jurisdiction of Civil courts to confer title and the jurisdiction of revenue authorities to determine khatedari Rights under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The respondent’s grievance was primarily directed at the procedural irregularity committed by the appellant in initiating civil proceedings. The contention was confined to the procedural lapse in instituting suit without first obtaining khatedari rights.

Consequently, the Apex Court negated the pleadings concerning such procedural lapse and allowed the civil appeal. Additionally, the Apex Court by referring to Section 17 & 49 of Registration Act, 1908, which require mandatory registration of non-testamentary instruments executed to assign rights, outrightly held that the unregistered power of attorney and the agreement to sell were inadmissible before the court of law, as the said documents were mandatorily required to be registered for the purpose of effectuating the valid transfer of the property.

Additionally, the Apex Court also relied upon Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which stipulates that a mere contract of sale, even if accompanied by possession, does not, by itself, create any interest over such property. The court also referred to Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, which mandates that documents requiring compulsory registration must be registered within 4 months from the date of execution. Lastly, the Apex Court, while examining Order VII Rule XI of the CPC, 1908, observed that if even a single triable issue is disclosed in the plaint, it cannot be rejected summarily.

Key Findings

Applicability of Order 7 Rule 11

The Supreme Court made it very clear that only in limited circumstances a plaint under Order VII Rule XI can be rejected. Basically, if the plaint fails to disclose the cause of action or is barred by any law or is undervalued or is not stamped properly, it can be rejected. It was also observed that when there is any triable issue that seems on the face of the records, the plaint should not be rejected, and the matter must be allowed to move forward for trial.

Uphold the jurisdiction of the civil court

The Court reaffirmed that civil courts have the power to discuss cases related to the transfer of title or the grant of declaratory relief over Immovable property. However, the Court overlooked the procedural requirement that before asking for any derogatory relief, one is required to obtain tenancy rights under the Rajasthan Tenancy Rights Act, 1955.

Affording a fair opportunity to cure the defect

While looking into the matter of insufficient court fees, the Court relied on its earlier decision in Tajendra Singh Ghambir & Another Vs Gurpreet Singh & Others (2014). It was cleared that the suit cannot be dismissed solely because of insufficient court fees. The law gives a chance to the plaintiff to rectify such procedural mistakes.

Application of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The Apex Court relied upon the pleadings of the appellant concerning the transaction under agreement to sell was a mortgage arrangement, falling within the exception to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (Section 95 Bhartiya shakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), thereby it can be testified through oral and extrinsic evidence to elucidate the true nature of the transaction. The proviso (1) to section 92, permits the oral testimony to invalidate any document which was executed to get a decree in his favor on failure of consideration, as in instant case the appellant argued that consideration for ‘sale’ was never truly existed the said documents were not intended to transfer the title, rather the same were in substance of mortgage.

Inadmissibility of unregistered instruments

The Apex Court reiterated the well-settled law regarding the mandatory registration of documents under the Registration Act, 1908, to effectuate a sale transaction, holding that an unregistered power of attorney and agreement to sell is inadmissible in evidence to effectuate such a transaction.

In this context, reliance is rightly placed on Muruganandam vs Muniyandi (Died) Through LRs (2025), where the Apex Court outrightly held that unregistered documents may be admissible in evidence in a suit for specific performance. The court also referred to its earlier findings in S Kaladevi vs V.R. Somasundaram (2010), which affirms this well-settled principle.

Mutation is merely an administrative consequence

The Apex Court rightly held that mutation entries are merely for fiscal purposes and do not confer any title. Particularly in this case, it was an administrative consequence of the execution of the sale deed.

In this context, the court placed reliance on Suraj Bhan vs Financial Commissioner, (2007) & Jitendra vs State of Madhya Pradesh, (2021), where the Apex Court reiterated the settled principle that Civil courts are well-equipped to confer title of immovable Property, mere mutation of names is not sufficient to establish title.

Invalidation of the sale deed

The Apex Court invalidated the execution of the sale deed, as the execution was carried out after the revocation of such power of attorney; such a transaction is deemed non-est in law.

While adjudicating the issue concerning mandatory registration of documents under the Registration Act, 1908, the Apex Court specifically observed that an unregistered power of attorney and agreement to sell can only be relied upon for a collateral purpose for specific performance.

What makes this case Stand Out

This judgment is distinguishable from earlier findings, as particularly in this case, the Apex Court failed to classify the procedural lapse concerning the failure of declaration of khatedari rights by the appellant before obtaining declaratory reliefs from the civil court, as the appellant’s own pleadings reflect their status as khatedari tenants.

Despite this, the Court failed to appreciate the jurisdiction of revenue courts for the declaration of khatedari rights under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. This procedural lapse concerning the failure of declaration of khatedari rights by the appellant is in the violation of procedural integrity of revenue courts, as it is well-established that the party cannot seek declaratory relief from a civil court until the administrative requirements are not accompanied therewith.

In this context, the Apex Court findings in Pyarelal vs Shubhendra Pilania (2019), under a similar set of facts, the court outrightly held that a plaintiff seeking cancellation of a gift deed must first establish his status as Khatedar, and such declaration is a prerequisite for seeking such relief. This principle was also reaffirmed in Rajasthan State Shriganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ajeet Singh (2023), where a similar view was taken by the High Court of Rajasthan, while rejecting the application under Order VII Rule XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Likewise, in Sunil v. Ostwal Phoschem (India) Ltd. (2023), the court demonstrated that civil courts are not entitled to entertain a suit until the valid declaration of Khatedari Rights by the Revenue Court.

Notwithstanding the fact, the Supreme Court appears to have misapprehended the core arguments, as respondents never disputed the jurisdiction of civil courts to confer title per se, or argued that the revenue court had such jurisdiction. Rather, their arguments were deeply rooted in the mandatory declaration of khatedari rights, before instituting the civil suit.

The earlier pronouncements of this court were rendered on distinct factual matrices, wherein revenue court proceedings were either pending or actively contested. However, in the instant matter, no such proceeding was pending. Accordingly, the earlier findings are not directly applicable to the present case.

Critical analysis and some unaddressed contentions

The judgment raises a mix of factual and legal questions. But there are still some common issues that haven’t been answered, such as:

Not recorded the findings of the High Court

It seems that the Court missed the observation of the High Court regarding the party’s status as a tenant. This is essential when applying Section 207.

The main issue was related to the procedural lapse. The suit was filed without first obtaining the khatedari rights. But since the findings were made in isolation, it should have been looked at alongside the observations of the High Court.

Didn’t examine the veracity of the unilateral revocation

The Court did not question the validity of the appellant’s move to revoke the power of attorney. This revocation was done without providing any notice to the respondent and also without providing them a chance to be heard. Since the document was formulated to make the decision in favour of the respondent, this was an utter violation of the principles of natural justice. Such documents could not have been revoked without them agreeing.

No clarification on the jurisdiction sequence

The Court did recognise the jurisdiction of the civil court in declaratory relief matters. It also acknowledge the jurisdiction the revenue court for khatedari matters. But there was no discussion on how these two issues are connected.

It is a set rule that a party is not allowed to pray for declaratory relief from a civil court until the administrative steps are finished. The question was whether the jurisdiction of the civil court would be impacted if the matter involves mandatory declaration of khatedari rights and ownership rights.

Overlooked documentary evidence on the behest of oral testimony

There were some arguements presented by the respondents. These were related to the execution of the documents within the relevant time frame. This also included the sale agreement and was a strong evidence of the sale transaction. It showed that the transaction was a mortgage and not a sale. But these arguments were completey missed.

It instead chose to rely on the oral testimony to interepret the actual transaction and this wrongly brought Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 into play.

Balance between Statutory Bar and Legal Right

Moreover, the Apex Court failed to balance the express statutory bar under Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 with the enforcement of legal rights, as the Apex Court failed to appreciate the jurisdiction of revenue court in matters concerning khatedari rights vis-a-vis enlarged the scope of civil court jurisdiction, enabling litigants to approach civil courts without obtaining khatedari rights, or without following any procedural requirement (i.e. mutation of names in revenue records).

Does this decision expand or limit the avenues available to parties in land disputes?

This decision expands the avenues available to the litigants by broadening the scope of civil court jurisdiction, particularly in matters concerning ownership rights. The court also imposed the restriction on premature rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly where a triable issue is disclosed in the plaint. Additionally, the court reiterated the plaintiff’s right to cure procedural defects –insufficient court fees and stamping, thereby securing civil remedies.

Impact on small landholders or developers

Furthermore, this precedent may strengthen the legal protection of small landholders, as from now onwards, the registration of documents is compulsory. This judicial recognition of mandatory registration of documents may enhance the standards of legal compliance, which may protect the small landholders from losing property through informal documentation. On the other hand, this judgement may have grave implications for small or large-scale developers, as this judgement effectively mandates the developers to conduct due diligence before executing any relevant documents and also emphasises that mere notarization is not sufficient to effectuate the claim.

Practical implications for legal practitioners

This precedent carries significant implications for both litigants and real-estate consultants, as this judgment reinforces concerns regarding registration compliance to effectuate the transfer of title, and also reaffirms the jurisdiction of the civil court in transferring the title of the immovable property. The detailed version is as follows –

No legal sanctity of unregistered documents

Unregistered documents hold no legal sanctity in transferring title, thereby putting stakeholders, particularly land developers, on alert to ensure strict compliance to statutory provisions.

Procedural fairness Vs. Legal Rights

The findings of the Apex Court affirm that the cancellation of a sale deed without obtaining khatedari rights ensures the litigants’ access to civil remedies without following the rigorous process of revenue courts, thereby safeguarding the interest of the small land-holders.

Limitation on the scope of Order VII Rule XI

The court narrows down the scope of Order VII Rule XI, provides procedural ventilation to litigants, by reaffirming that even if a single triable issue is disclosed in the plaint, then such a lawsuit is sustainable, thereby enlarging the operational scope of civil court jurisdiction.

Mutation entries are not sufficient to confer the title

The court also clarified that merely the mutation of names is not sufficient to confer any title, as it is merely an administrative consequence. Consequently, the burden is now on the claimants to substantiate their title over immovable property through proper legal instruments, instead of relying on revenue entries

Nonetheless, the lack of clarity on the interplay between the grant of declaratory relief and the declaration of khatedari rights leaves litigants in a state of procedural uncertainty. This judicial silence warrants legislative clarification to harmonise the functions of the civil and revenue courts.

Pre-contractual instrument

Now, litigants must be more cautious in terms of unilateral execution and revocation of documents, as in this case, the court vehemently relied upon the revoked Power of Attorney while rejecting the sale deed.

Expert Review: Striking a balance between judicial innovation and legislative silence

The Vinod Infra Developers judgment gives clarity on how the civil courts and revenue authorities work together in land disputes. It was made clear by the Court that it is the Tenancy Act that can deal with the disputes related to tenancy. But, yes, in the matter of the title and ownership, the civil court can decide the issue.

What do I see as the key takeaway from the decision? It is that this judgment stood strong against the usage of informal and unregistered documents for property transfer. The Court focused on the importance of proper registration and took a step to prevent misuse of ensure certainty in property transactions.

However, there are still some unresolved issues. There is still no proper legislative clarity on how those cases will be dealt with in which both tenancy and ownership issues are involved. Now, because of this gap, out of confusion, the litigants choose the best option that suits their interest, hence, forum shopping and procedural delays.

Well! Critics may argue that this judgment could weaken the revenue courts’ authority or may lead to premature title claims. Even so, by affirming the power of the civil courts, this judgment helps avoid prolonged litigation, especially in those cases where the parties’ status is unclear or disputed.

Conclusion and Recommendation

In this case, the Apex Court revisited the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to effect transfer of title, emphasised the statutory requirement of registration of documents, and also clarified the grounds for rejection of the plaint. Nevertheless, the court failed to address the core issue concerning the declaration of khatedari rights before invoking civil jurisdiction. Notably, this omission reveals the jurisdictional ambiguity and warrants a revisit of the application of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Rights Act, 1955. Moreover, legislative intervention is necessary to expel such ambiguity by limiting the jurisdiction of civil courts to preserve the functional relevance and exclusivity; otherwise, the formulation of revenue courts would become nugatory.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Under what conditions will the application under Order VII Rule XI be allowed?

An application under O.7 R.11 can be allowed on certain grounds, which are as follows:

Non-Disclouser of Cause of Action
Non-payment of court fees, despite the specific directions from the court.
Suit barred by law
Plaint not properly stamped
Plaint no filed in duplicate
Non-compliance with Order VII Rule 9.

What is the cause of action in reference to Order 7 Rule 11(a)

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Vs Poniamman Educational Trust, (2012) elucidated that, ‘Cause of Action’ is a bundle of facts which, taken with the law applicable to them, gives the plaintiff the right to sue. It includes a set of facts that are instrumental to obtaining a decree from the court must be set out in very clear terms.

Whether the civil court is entitled to confer the title of the disputed land?

Section 9, read with Explanation 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, empowers a civil court to try all suits of a civil nature, particularly those involving property rights, unless expressly or impliedly barred by a statute.

What is the Rajasthan Tenancy Rights Act, 1955?

This Act intends to consolidate and alter the previous laws relating to agricultural land in the State of Rajasthan, and also provides certain land reforms and matters connected therewith.