- (1.) BY this revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C., the defendant-petitioner has challenged the order dated 21st July, 2011 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) No.1, Behror, District Alwar in civil suit no.141/2004 whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. has been rejected.
(2.) THE defendant-petitioner in his application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. has taken an objection that the civil suit for declaration of the Will as void and for grant of permanent injunction which relates to the agriculture land, therefore, only the revenue court has got jurisdiction and the civil court has got no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case. The trial court after considering the rival submissions of the parties came to the conclusion that the judgment in the case of Kamla Prasad & Ors. vs. Shri Krishna Kant Pathak & Ors. {2007(2) Supreme 173} is in relation to the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and not in relation to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and rejected the application vide order dated 21st July, 2011. Counsel for the defendant petitioner submitted that the court below has not properly considered this aspect of the case that the relief claimed by the plaintiff non-petitioners can only be granted by the revenue court and the civil court has got no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the defendant petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Kamla Prasad (supra). However, during the course of arguments when he was confronted that the said judgment relates to U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 wherein the civil suit is specifically barred, counsel for the petitioner has not pressed his submissions. However, he submits that this Court in the case of Rooda Ram vs. Rattu Ram (1972 RLW 532) wherein the cause of action arising out of the Khatedari rights in the field and the relief of setting aside the sale, the Court held that for such a relief the suit is triable by the revenue court. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to go through Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 which bars the rights of the civil courts all suits and applications in respect of the reliefs of the nature specified in the Third Schedule. Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and para 10 of the judgment in the case of Roodaram (supra) are as follows:- "207. Suit 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 could have granted. "10. In para-2 of the plaint it is averred that the field in question belonged to Kashi Ram who was the grand-father of the plaintiff Ratturam and father of defendant Ghisa Ram. In para 3 it is mentioned that after the death of the father and grand-father of the plaintiff there was mutation in favour of the plaintiff in revenue papers. Then it is averred that the plaintiff was in possession of the field and defendant No.1 had no right over it. Thereafter it was averred that in order to deprive the plaintiff of his rights in the field the defendant Ghisa Ram had made a sale deed in favour of the other defendants and it was consequently void and of no effect against the plaintiff. In the result, prayer for cancellation of the sale deed was made. I am not here concerned with the maintainability of the suit on other grounds and this discussion is limited only to the question of competence of the civil court. A proper analysis of the averments in the plaint yields the following postulates:- (1)that the plaintiff is the Khatedar of the field in dispute; (2)defendant Ghisa Ram had no right whatsoever over this field. (3)Ghisa Ram could not have made any sale of the field; (4)the sale made by Ghisa Ram in favour of the other defendants was in consequence null and void. It will be thus evident that the real cause of action is to whom does the field in question belong. If it belonged to the plaintiff as he claimed, then he other reliefs that he might be claiming would follow as a matter of course. Therefore the crux of the matter is that the plaintiff is seeking vindication of his own Khatedari rights in the field by the present suit and the connected or collateral points that would arise for consideration would be about the validly of the sale made by Ghisaram. As observed by Modi J and as it appears to be the tenor of S.207 one has to look to the substance of the matter. The reliefs that may be desired from a civil court need not be identical with the relief that could be granted or claimed from a revenue court but that is not a point of substance for determining the question as to whether the suit is triable exclusively by a revenue court or not. The burden of the section is the nature of the cause of action. I am, therefore, satisfied that the suit is of the nature triable by a revenue courts and is covered squarely by the provisions of sec. 207 Tenancy Act. The courts below were, therefore, in error in holding that the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit. I have gone through the revision petition and further considered the submission of counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) THIS Court while dealing with the similar situation in the matter of Vimal Kumar Jain vs. Mahaveer Pd. Jain {2006 WLC (Raj.) UC 283} wherein the plaintiff primarily has questioned the validity of execution of Wills, in para 17 held that such relief can exclusively be granted by a Civil Court only. Para 17 of the judgment reads thus- "17. In the present case, while examining substance of the plaint, plaintiff's case is virtually for a declaration of Wills to be non-est and void and further ancillary relief is claimed for declaration claiming half share in suit property referred to in the Wills including agricultural land in question also. In this view of matter, trial court has not committed any error of jurisdiction in holding that primarily relief claimed for is questioning validity of Wills and declaration can only be granted by civil court and not by revenue courts, unless those Wills are declared non-est and void, no other ancillary relief as claimed for in the suit can be granted by other court competent to adjudicate upon. The plaintiff primarily has questioned the validity of execution of Wills by its testator in favour of defendant, for which in my considered opinion, relief can exclusively be granted by a Civil Court only and I find that explanation to section 207 read with items 3 and 5 of Schedule III to the Tenancy Act are not applicable in facts situation of instant case." In the present case, the defendant petitioner has not been able to point out the nature of suit specified in the Third Schedule, Item Nos. 1 to 35 which deal with the nature of the suits, therefore, the trial court has rightly distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kamla Prasad (supra) and has not committed any error of jurisdiction. The judgment of this Court in the matter of Rooda Ram (supra) is also distinguishable as in that case, the plaintiff was seeking vindication of his own Khatedari rights in the agriculture field. For the discussions above, this Court is of the view that the trial court has not committed any error in exercising its jurisdiction. The revision petition has no force and the same is, dismissed. ;