[2025:RJ-JP:19121] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 41/2019 Prahlad Choudhary S/o Shri Sukhdev Choudhary, R/o Rindliya Bujurg, Tehsil Malpura, Presently Residing Near Petrol Pump Dudu Road, Malpura, Tehsil Malpura, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Abdul Shakoor S/o Mehboob @ Mehmood, R/o Malpura, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan. 2. Shaheed Ahmad S/o. Mehboob @ Mehmood, R/o Malpura, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan. 3. Raies Ahmad S/o Saied Ahmad, R/o Malpura, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan. 4. Mohd. Yunus S/o Saied Ahmad, R/o Malpura, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan. 5. Abdul Wahid S/o Saied Ahmad, R/o Malpura, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan. 6. Mujahid Akthar S/o Saied Ahmad, R/o Malpura, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan. 7. Bilkis Banoo D/o. Saied Ahmad, R/o Malpura, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan. 8. Birjees Banoo D/o. Saied Ahmad, R/o Malpura, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan. 9. Nurjahan Widow Of Saied Ahmad, R/o Malpura, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan. Plaintiffs/Respondents 10. Shahjad Ali S/o Mehboob @ Mehmood Ali, R/o Malpura, Distt. Tonk. Defendant/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anita Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Luxmi Kant Taylor, Adv. Mr. Vibhanshu Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment [2025:RJ-JP:19121] (2 of 3) [CR-41/2019] Date of Judgment 07/05/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Malpura, District Tonk (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.1/2015, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the respondent Nos.1 to 9/plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for declaring the sale deed dated 17.09.2014 as null and void, permanent injunction and declaring them as khatedar tenant against the defendant as well as defendant No.10. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but the trial court vide order dated 07.01.2019 wrongly dismissing the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that by way of said suit, the plaintiffs wanted to declared them as Khatedar tenant and they also sought the relief that the sale deed executed by defendant No.10 in favour of the defendant be declared as null and void. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that for declaration of khatedari rights, civil court had no jurisdiction and only the revenue court had jurisdiction to try it. So, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable being barred by Law. So, the trial court should have dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed, order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:19121] (3 of 3) [CR-41/2019] Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that the plaintiffs wanted to declare the so called sale deed dated 17.09.2014 as null and void because they had share in the disputed property. Registered documents can only be cancelled by the civil court. Declaration of Khatedari rights is their ancillary relief. So, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that objections raised by the defendant would be decided after evidence of the parties. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arugments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that on 29.01.1968, the disputed land was allotted to late Mahabub @ Mahmud (ancestors of the plaintiff as well as defendant No.10). After his death, land was mutated in the name of Gafooran. Although, after the death of Gafooran, mutation was entered in the name of defendant No.10, but as per contention of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were also having share in the disputed property and mutation was wrongly entered in the name of defendant No.10. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court rightly came to the conclusion that suit regarding cancellation of the sale deed is triable by Civil Court. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/71