Sundarlal Soni vs Durga Shankar Chandak And Others

Birendra Kumar, J

Petitioner is aggrieved by refusal of prayer to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by order dated 15.02.2024 passed in Civil Suit No.01/2024.

Prayer of the petitioner was on the ground that civil court had no jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 to grant relief of declaration of Title/ Khatedari Right in respect of agricultural land.

The case of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is that plaintiff-respondent No.1 is owner of 10 Bighas and 9 Biswa of land in Khasra No.575/2 and 8 Bighas and 8 Biswa in Khasra No.580. Both the lands are agricultural land and were recorded in the name of sole plaintiff Durgashankar Chandak. The plaintiff pleaded that one Chaganlal had two sons Chandratan and Surajratan.

Plaintiff is one of the son of Surajratan and respondent No.3 Manmohan Chandak is grandson of Chaganlal and respondent No.4 Ramesh Chandak is son of Manmohan Chandak. Respondent No.3 & 4 created forged power of attorney said to be executed by plaintiff in respect of the suit land and they sold the suit property to respondent No.1 Sunder Lal Soni by a registered sale deed executed in June, 2022.

The plaintiff sought for relief of declaration of his Title, grant of permanent injunction and declaration that the power of attorney was a forged document and the sale deed in favour of Sunder Lal was fit to be canceled/declared inoperative.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Pyarelal Vs. Subhendra Pilania” reported in 2019 (3) SCC 692, especially on para 22 & 23 of the judgment.

Undisputedly, a suit for declaration of Khatedari Right would lie before the revenue court in view of the mandate of law under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. However, on perusal of the entire plaint, it is evident that the plaintiff was recorded tenant on the date of execution of sale deed, therefore plaintiff was not required to get his Khatedari Right declared by the revenue court. In Pyarelal’s case (supra) the fact was quite different in as much as after death of Mangal Ram and his wife Rukma, the agricultural land devolved upon respondent No.3 and his sister Khusali Devi (mother of the plaintiff) in equal share. Khusali Devi died intestate and her share devolved upon her children i.e. the appellant and respondent No.7 to 10 in equal measures. The appellant and respondent No.7 to 10 claimed to be in possession of their share in the suit property.

In the aforesaid facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it was a case, wherein declaration of Khatedari Right was essential prior to seeking the relief of cancellation of gift deed and Khatedari Right would be declared only by the revenue court.

In the case on hand, as contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent there is no dispute that plaintiff-respondent was recorded in the government records as Khatedar of the suit property. The dispute is to the extent whether the plaintiff had genuinely executed a power of attorney in favour of his nephew Manmohan and Ramesh S/o Manmohan. If the said document is found to be a forged document, the sale deed executed by them in favour of the respondent No.1 would automatically fail and this adjudication can be done only by civil court and not by the revenue court. Therefore, the court below had rightly refused the prayer for rejection of the plaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. Entire perusal of the plaint would reveal that plaintiff had sought for declaration of power of attorney as a forged document as well as declaration of sale deed as inoperative and void ab initio. Merely, for seeking other relief without any need for such relief would not change the nature of the suit. Therefore, I find no merit in this civil revision and the same accordingly stands dismissed.