[2025:RJ-JP:35752] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 219/2023 1. Gangaram Meena S/o Late Mr. Netaram Meena, R/o Village Chainpura, Jawahar Circle, Tehsil Sanganer, District- Jaipur. 2. Smt Soni Devi W/o Chandalal, R/o Village Chainpura, Jawahar Circle, Tehsil Sanganer, District- Jaipur. 3. Vijay Singh S/o Chandalal, R/o Village Chainpura, Jawahar Circle, Tehsil Sanganer, District- Jaipur. 4. Rakesh Meena S/o Ramphool Meena, R/o Village Chainpura, Jawahar Circle, Tehsil Sanganer, District- Jaipur. 5. Naresh Meena S/o Ramphool Meena, R/o Village Chainpura, Jawahar Circle, Tehsil Sanganer, District- Jaipur. 6. Smt Savitri Devi W/o Ramphool Meena, R/o Village Chainpura, Jawahar Circle, Tehsil Sanganer, District- Jaipur. 7. Kailash Meena S/o Chandalal, R/o Village Chainpura, Jawahar Circle, Tehsil Sanganer, District- Jaipur. 8. Gopallal Meena S/o Dhannalal Meena., R/o Village Chainpura, Jawahar Circle, Tehsil Sanganer, District- Jaipur. 9. Babulal Meena S/o Dhannalal Meena, R/o Village Chainpura, Jawahar Circle, Tehsil Sanganer, District- Jaipur. 10. Shankarlal S/o Dhannalal Meena., R/o Village Chainpura, Jawahar Circle, Tehsil Sanganer, District- Jaipur. 11. Smt Ramadevi W/o Lalaram, R/o Village Chainpura, Jawahar Circle, Tehsil Sanganer, District- Jaipur. 12. Mohanlal S/o Lalaram, R/o Village Chainpura, Jawahar Circle, Tehsil Sanganer, District- Jaipur. ----Appellants/Plaintiffs Versus 1. Ranjit Singh S/o Late Shri Netaram Meena, R/o Village Chainpura, Jawahar Circle, Tehsil Sanganer, District- Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:35752] (2 of 16) [CFA-219/2023] 2. Amit Singh S/o Shri N.r. Khangar, R/o L-31, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 3. Nanagram Meena S/o Late Shri Gopallal Meena, R/o A-1, Badgoti Bhawan, Amali Kothi, Suryanagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 4. Pushpendra Kumar Badgoti S/o Shri Nanagram Meena, R/o A-1, Badgoti Bhawan, Amali Kothi, Suryanagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents/ defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashok Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mudit Singhvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr .J.K. Moolchandani and Mr. Siddharth Singh for respondents/ defendants No. 3 and 4 Mr. R.K. Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Sharma and Mr. Anirudh Gupta for respondent /defendant No.2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Judgment Reserved on ::: Sept. 01, 2025 Pronounced on ::: Sept.09, 2025 1. This civil misc. first appeal has been filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2023 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Headquarter Sanganer (for short ‘the court below’) in Civil Suit No. 160/2022, whereby the application filed by the respondent/ defendant No.1- Ranjeet Singh under Order VII Rule 11 read with [2025:RJ-JP:35752] (3 of 16) [CFA-219/2023] section 151 CPC has been allowed and the plaint filed by the appellants/ plaintiff has been dismissed. 2. The facts borne out from the pleadings are that the appellants/ plaintiffs filed a civil suit on 12.10.2022 for declaration, cancellation of agreement dated 31.12.2003 & injunction in the Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metro-I, Sanganer with respect to their ancestral property i.e Land bearing Khasra No. 408/289 admeasuring 0.0367 which has been fraudulently recorded in the name of respondent/ defendant No.4 in the revenue records but the said property in reality belongs to the appellants/ plaintiffs only. It is further stated in the plaint that the respondent No.2 based on the so-called fabricated agreements transferred/sold the subject matter of the property through an agreement dated 16.11.2012 which got attested on 29.11.2012 to the respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 gifted the said property to his son i.e. respondent No.4 through a registered Gift Deed dated 23.03.2021. The appellants/ plaintiffs upon inquiry found about the said fraudulent conduct of the respondents and immediately, the appellant No.8 lodged an F.I.R No. 65/2022 on 09.05.2022 with respect to the same. 3. The respondent /defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on 18.10.2022 stating that the suit [2025:RJ-JP:35752] (4 of 16) [CFA-219/2023] preferred by the appellants/ plaintiffs is without any cause of action and the same deserves to be dismissed in absence of the same. 4. Vide order dated 17.02.2023 the Civil Court allowed the application filed by the respondent/ defendant No.1 under Order VII Rule 11 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and rejected the plaint filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs. Hence, this first appeal. 5. Mr. Ashok Mehta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mudit Singhvi, appearing for the appellants/ plaintiffs submitted that Judgment and Decree dated 17.02.2023 passed by the Civil Court is against facts and material on record. Senior Counsel submitted that the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 17.02.2023 passed by learned trial court is against law, legal propositions settled by law as well as pleadings contained in the Plaint and the documents submitted and annexed with the plaint which were both required to be seen while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC. Senior Counsel further submitted that the court below has failed to consider that the appellants/ plaintiffs and respondent No. 1 were the recorded Khatedars of the entire land (13 Khasras), out of which the disputed land is said to have been carved out and fraudulently sold. New Khasra Number 408/289 and a new Khata concerning the disputed [2025:RJ-JP:35752] (5 of 16) [CFA-219/2023] land has only been given at the time of fraudulent mutation caused at the instance of the respondents/ defendants. Senior counsel also submitted that prior thereto, the said Khasra Number 408/289 had no independent existence and the same was a part of the 13 Khasras of which the appellants, their ancestors and respondent No. 1 were the recorded Khatedars. Thus, the suit did not involve any question of declaration of Khatedari rights of the appellants/plaintiffs over the disputed land but merely alleged that the small piece of land (440 Square Yards) out of the total land of the Khatedari of the appellants and the respondent No. I was fraudulently sold by respondent No. 1 to the respondent No. 2 and so on. Senior Counsel further submitted that the revenue records for the entire khatedari land (13 Khasras from which the alleged small disputed land of 440 Square Yards was fraudulently sold) makes it absolutely clear that the appellants are Khatedars thereof even till the year 2021 and therefore, the civil suit so filed was not primarily a suit for declaration of khatedari rights but rather a suit to have the subsequent fraudulent sale agreements and gift deed concerning the disputed land declared void ab-initio. Senior Counsel also submitted that the said disputed land of 440 Square Yards was a part of the land of the appellants and respondent No. 1. The appellants and the respondent No. 1 [2025:RJ-JP:35752] (6 of 16) [CFA-219/2023] belonging to Scheduled Tribes, could not have sold the same to the respondent No. 2 which belongs to Scheduled Castes in terms of the prohibition contained in law for the same. Thus, the first sale agreement is itself void. Further, the said agreement to sell and the further agreement to sell entered in between the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 is also void since the original agreement to sell itself is also void and could not have taken place. Further, the said agreements to sell are both unregistered and therefore transfer of property cannot be said to have been effected by the said agreements. Since no actual transfer of property took place in favour of respondent No. 3, the gift deed caused by it in favour of respondent No. 4 is also of no effect and could not have been so effected nor could the same have been registered. The Court below failed to understand that the suit filed by the Plaintiffs/Appellants was primarily to have the said transactions declared as null and void/void-ab-initio as against the recorded khatedari of the said appellants. The fraudulent registration of the gift deed and the mutation and subsequent re-numbering of the disputed land as an independent Khasra in the name of respondent No. 4 was the cause of action for presenting the suit against the recorded khatedari of the appellants/plaintiffs even pertaining to the disputed land. [2025:RJ-JP:35752] (7 of 16) [CFA-219/2023] Senior Counsel further submitted that the primary issue is not with respect to the declaration of the khatedari rights as the same was already declared in the name of the appellants and the respondent No. 2 and the controversy revolves around the Cancellation of the false and fabricated aforementioned agreements executed by the respondents and the said Gift Deed executed by them and the said relief can only be granted by a Civil Court and not the Revenue Courts and the said aspect has not been considered by the learned Court below. Senior Counsel further submitted that the Khatedari rights vested in the appellants/their ancestors and respondent No. 1 for the entire 13 Khasras of which only 440 Square Yards of disputed land was fraudulently sold and later re-numbered with a new Khasra Number (in 2021) in the name of Respondent No. 4. Hence even the said new independent Khasra was under the Khatedari of the appellants/their ancestors/respondent No. 1 only. Hence, there was no need to first file a suit for declaration of the Khatedari rights before the Revenue Court. Senior Counsel also submitted that the relief sought by the appellants for Cancellation of the said Agreement is not covered by Section 207 and Third Schedule of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and a Civil Court only has jurisdiction to decide the said dispute and the said aspect has not been considered by the Learned Court below. The said relief is [2025:RJ-JP:35752] (8 of 16) [CFA-219/2023] outside the contemplation of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be in respect of matters arising under the said Act. Senior Counsel also submitted that the precedent cited by the respondents based on which the Court below has rejected the plaint preferred by the Appellants does not squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present dispute. Senior Counsel further submitted that the present appellants and their ancestors were already vested with the Khatedari rights with respect to the subject matter property and it is nothing in the present case that the Khatedari rights are yet to be declared and thus, the present appellants stand on a different footing and the respondents have fraudulently, after 2019, tried to transfer the Khatedari rights of the disputed land in favour of respondent No. 4 in collusion with the Revenue officers and all these facts have not been considered by the Court below before rejecting the said suit preferred by the Appellants. 6. Mr. J.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J.K. Moolchandani and Mr. Siddharth Singh appearing for the respondents/ defendants No. 3 and 4 submitted that in para No.1 of the plaint, the plaintiffs/ appellants themselves have averred this fact that the subject land is recorded in the name of respondent / defendant No.4- Pushpendra Kumar [2025:RJ-JP:35752] (9 of 16) [CFA-219/2023] Badgoti. He further submitted that on the date of filing of the suit the land in question was recorded as an agricultural land. He further submitted that the plaintiffs in para No.6 of the plaint have also admitted this fact that the land in question i.e. Khasra No.408/289 has been entered in the name of the defendant No.4 by Mutation No. 59 dated 27.08.2021 which was approved by the Tehsildar, Sanganer on 31.08.2021. He submitted that in view of verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) through natural guardian (Father Shri Pradeep Kumar Pilania & Ors., reported in (2019) 1 WLC (SC) Civil 357, once the land is recorded in the name of the defendant, the plaintiff without seeking declaration in his favour by filing a proper suit before the competent Court cannot institute a suit for cancellation of the sale deed in the Civil court. He also submitted that the plaintiffs have also instituted an appeal against the mutation of the land in question in favour of the respondents/ defendants. 7. Mr. R.K. Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashish Sharma and Mr. Anirudh Gupta, appearing for the respondent/ defendant No.1 submitted that there is no whisper of revenue record in the plaint and there is no pleadings as regards getting the mutation of the land in question in favour of the respondents/ defendants by fraud. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that as required [2025:RJ-JP:35752] (10 of 16) [CFA-219/2023] under Order VI rule 4 CPC, the plaintiffs have not given the particulars in the pleadings as regards misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default or undue influence. 8. Considered the submissions made by the Senior Counsels appearing for the respective parties and gone through the entire material made available to the Court. 9. The application under Order VII Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC was filed by the respondent/ defendant No.1 for rejection of the plaint on the ground of want of cause of action, the suit beyond the limitation and on the ground that since the land in question is an agricultural land, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and without seeking any declaration from the Revenue Court, the suit cannot be entertained for cancellation of alleged agreements. 10. The learned court below while disposing of the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC has observed that the plaintiffs were having cause of action to file the suit and the suit was also filed within the limitation period and the said findings have not been challenged by the respondents / defendants. So the Court is considering the case only on the remaining issue i.e. ‘Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit which is recorded as an agricultural land and in the facts when the land in question is recorded in the names of [2025:RJ-JP:35752] (11 of 16) [CFA-219/2023] respondents/ defendants, the suit can be filed for cancellation of agreement without seeking declaration.?’ 11. In the present case in para No.1 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that the land bearing Khasra No.408/289 measuring 0.036 hectare is recorded in the name of defendant No.4- Pushpendra Kumar Badgoti. In para No.6 of the plaint it has also been stated that the mutation of the land in question has been recorded in the name of defendant No.4 vide Mutation No. 59 dated 27.08.2021 which has been approved by the Tehsildar, Sanganer, on 31.08.2021. In view of the aforesaid facts as averred in the plaint, the land in question i.e. Khasra No.408/289 is recorded in the name of the defendant No.4. 12. The plaintiffs in the plaint have not sought any relief for declaration in their favour as regards the land in question but have only made the prayer for cancellation of certain agreements. It is also an admitted fact that on the date of institution of the suit the land in question i.e. Khasra No.408/289 which was recorded in the name of the defendant No.4, was the agricultural land. 13. Part I of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the jurisdiction of the Courts and res judicata. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure speaks of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to try all the suits unless barred. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:35752] (12 of 16) [CFA-219/2023] “9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred .- The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Explanation [I]:-A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies. [Explanation II:-For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place.] 14. Section 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) deals with the bar to jurisdiction of Civil Courts as regards certain proceedings. Section 256 of the Act of 1955 reads as under:- “256. Bar to jurisdiction of Civil courts — (1) Save as otherwise provided specifically by or under this Act, no suit or proceeding shall lie in any civil court with respect or any matter arising under this Act or the rule made thereunder, for which a remedy by way of suit, application, appeal or otherwise is provided therein. (2) Save as aforesaid no order passed by the State Government or by any revenue court or Officer in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall he liable to be questioned in any civil court.” [2025:RJ-JP:35752] (13 of 16) [CFA-219/2023] 15. Section 207 of the Act of 1955 provides for the suits and applications cognizable by revenue court only. Section 207 of the Act of 1955 reads as under:- “207. Suits and applications cognizable by revenue court only— (1) All suits and application 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 suitor 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.” 16. In view of the aforesaid provisions, the Court feels that Section 9 CPC provides Civil Courts to try all the suits of a civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred by any Statute. Section 256 of the Act of 1955 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts for which a remedy by way of suit, application, appeal or otherwise is provided in the Act of 1955. Section 207 of the Act of 1955 says that no court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any suit or, application of the nature as specified in the Third Schedule, which can be heard by the revenue court as an exclusive jurisdiction. [2025:RJ-JP:35752] (14 of 16) [CFA-219/2023] 17. Third Schedule appended to the Act of 1955 speaks of the suit for declaration of the plaintiff’s right (i) as a tenant; (ii) as a tenant of khudkast; (iii) as a sub-tenant; and (iv) for a share in a joint tenancy. The entries at S.No.9 in the Third Schedule read with Section 207 of the Act of 1955 stipulates that a suit for declaration of right would lie before the Revenue Court. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pyarelal (supra) after having considered the aforestated law, provisions and the facts of the case that the land in question therein recorded in the name of the defendants and the plaintiff filed a suit to challenge the gift-deed made by one defendant in favour of other before the Civil Court, has observed as under:- “The question before this court was whether a recorded tenure-holder having prima facie title in his favour and in possession was required to file a suit in the revenue court, or where the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit seeking relief of cancellation of a void document. Upholding the jurisdiction of civil court to try the suit, a two judge Bench of this Court differentiated between a recorded tenure holder, and an unrecorded tenure holder with the following observations: “7. …we are of the opinion that where a recorded tenure holder having a prima facie title and in possession files suit in the civil [2025:RJ-JP:35752] (15 of 16) [CFA-219/2023] court for cancellation of sale deed having obtained on the ground of fraud or impersonation cannot be directed to file a suit for declaration in the revenue court - reason being that in such a case, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under cloud. He does not require declaration of his title to the land. The position would be different where a person not being a recorded tenure holder seeks cancellation of sale deed by filing a suit in the civil court on the ground of fraud or impersonation. There necessarily the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of his title and, therefore, he may be directed to approach the revenue court, as the sale deed being void has to be ignored for giving him relief for declaration and possession.” 19. It is a settled principle of law that if the suit property is recorded in the name of the defendant then no relief of permanent injunction, possession etc. can be sought without seeking declaration in his favour by the plaintiff. 20. As per the revenue record and the averments made by the plaintiffs/ appellants themselves in the plaint, the land in question bearing Khasra No. 408/289 is recorded in the revenue record in the name of defendant/ respondent No.4 and no relief has been sought by the plaintiffs seeking declaration in their favour as regards the land in question. It [2025:RJ-JP:35752] (16 of 16) [CFA-219/2023] is also a fact averred in the plaint that the subject land is an agricultural land as per the revenue record. 21. In view of the discussion made above, the Court is of the opinion that there is no error, illegality in the impugned order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the court below. The court below has rightly rejected the plaint. 22. Accordingly, this first appeal is dismissed. 23. In view of the judgment passed in the first appeal, the stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. 24. The Registry is directed to send back the record of the case, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma NK/Dy. Registrar