- (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 8/1/2015 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), whereby the Trial Court has rejected the plaint of the appellants under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of CPC.
(2.) It appears that the present appellants-plaintiffs had filed the suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 7/12/1990, and the supplementary agreements dated 30/7/1993 and 20/12/1993, and also for declaration that the sale deeds dated 13/4/2006 and 18/4/2006 executed in favour of the respondent Nos.11 and 12 (the defendant Nos.11 and 12) be declared as null and void, and also for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants. In the said suit, the respondent Nos.11 and 12 had filed the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC contending interalia that the suit was barred under Section 42B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The Trial Court while allowing the said application dismissed the suit vide the impugned order, against which the present appeal has been filed.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, and perusing the documents on record, more particularly, the averments made in the plaint, it appears that the present controversy is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in case of Chomu Sahakari Kray Vikary Samiti Limited vs. Jagdeesh Prasad Meena & Ors., 2013 3 WLC(Raj) 215. It has been held therein in para 7 as under :- "7. From the bare perusal of the said provision it transpires that there is general bar on the sale, gift and bequest by khatedari tenants of his interest in the part or whole of his holding in favour of a person who is not a member of schedule caste or schedule tribe. Though there cannot be any disagreement to the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court that the society or company incorporated under the relevant status would be juristic person and could not be said to be member of schedule caste or scheduled tribe, it requires to be noted that there is no bar under Section 42(b) of the Tenancy Act against filing of the suit. It may be a different thing that ultimately the appellant-plaintiff may not succeed in the suit on merits, in view of the said bar contained in Section 42, nonetheless in absence of any specific provision contained in the Tenancy Act barring the filing of the suit, the plaint of the appellant-plaintiff cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC....";