Case: PYARELAL Vs. SHUBHENDRA PILANIA (MINOR) THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN (FATHER) SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR PILANIA

3. The family tree of the appellant is depicted below:Sub-Registrar and Tehsildar are respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. 4. The appellant alleged that on the death of Mangalram and Rukma Devi, the agricultural land in question devolved upon respondent No. 3 and his sister Kushali Devi (mother of the Plaintiff) in equal shares. Kushali Devi died intestate and her share devolved upon her children – the appellant and respondent Nos. 7 to 10 in equal measure. The appellant and respondent Nos. 7 to 10 claim to be in possession of their share in the suit property. The appellant alleged that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 colluded with the Sarpanch of the village and got the name of respondent No. 3 recorded as the owner of the land belonging to the appellant and respondent Nos. 7 to 10. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 registered a gift deed dated 10 February 2011 in favour of respondent No. 1.5. On 13 March 2012, the appellant filed a civil suit1 against the respondents praying that the gift deed dated 10 February 2011 be declared void to the extent of the share claimed by the appellant and that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 be restrained from alienating the suit property. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 19082 contending that the appellant, who is not a recorded khatedar of the suit land, had filed a suit before the revenue court for the declaration of his khatedari right and the suit preferred by the appellant before the Trial court was liable to be dismissed. In reply, the appellant admitted that a suit had been filed before the revenue court for the declaration of his khatedari right but contended that the civil court had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought6. On 26 August, 2013, the Trial court dismissed the application, taking the view that any conclusion on the question of jurisdiction can only be drawn after framing preliminary issues and recording evidence of the parties. The objections were dismissed by Trial court with the following observations:So far as present application is concerned, in the said application, the first ground taken by the defendants is that the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 7 to 10 are not recorded kashtkar of the disputed land and they have already filed suit in the revenue court for getting their khatedari right declared. Therefore, civil courts have no jurisdiction to try the present suit.7. In this context, the defendants cited Rukmani v Bhola and others (SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 553/1993) dated 20.12.2011, while plaintiff cited DNJ 2013(1) Rajasthan 358. In the citation of the defendants, though theHigh Court has set this principle that if the relief of declaring any document ineffective and void is sought for and in pith and substance, the suit is related with khatedari rights, then revenue court would have jurisdiction to try the suit because until and unless revenue court has not declared khatedari rights, the civil court cannot declare the document void. Though in the citation cited by the defendants as stated above, the suit must be related for the declaration of basic khatedari rights, then only the jurisdiction is vested unto the revenue court, but if we carefully peruse the said citation then in that case the trial court has framed issues on the basis of pleadings of the plaint and written statement of the parties and thereafter recording evidence of the parties on the preliminary issue, the suit has been returned back for filing in the concerned court in view of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In the present case, issues are yet to be framed. The plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that his mother has one half share in the suit land hence on this point any conclusion can be drawn only after framing a preliminary issue and recording evidence of the. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 challenged the order of the Trial court in revision under Section 115 of the Code. The Rajasthan High Court allowed the revision by its judgement dated 13 November 2014. Relying on the averments in the plaint, the High Court held that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.3 The High Court observedand looking to the prayer of the plaintiff in the Trial court, it can easily be said that the suit was triable only by the revenue court under the provisions of Section 88 and Section 207 of the Act of 1955 and hence it can further be said that the suit from the averment in the plaint appears to be barred under the provisions of the Act of 1955 and the suit should have been rejected on that count alone under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d) of Code of Civil Procedure and hence the order dated 26.8.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.2, Sikar in Civil Suit No.62/2012 B.T. No.20/12 deserves to be quashed and set aside which is hereby quashed and setreview petition preferred by appellant was dismissed.

Court's reasoning:
Section 207 of the Tenancy Act states that no court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule. Such suits can be heard and determined by a revenue court which has exclusive jurisdiction. The explanation clarifies that if the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue court, then it is immaterial that a relief sought from the civil court is greater than, in addition to or not identical to the relief sought from the revenue court. Where a suit is of a nature specified in any of the provisions of the Third Schedule, the bar under Section 256 is attracted and the revenue courts have exclusive jurisdiction to try the suit. 14. In Bank of Baroda v Moti Bhai (1985) 1 SCC 475  , a two judge Bench of this Court dealt with the question of jurisdiction under Sections 207 and 256 of the Tenancy Act. A bank had sanctioned a demand loan facility to the respondent for which the respondent executed a promissory note and a simple mortgage in favour of the bank. On his failure to repay the loan, the Bank instituted a suit in the civil court for recovery. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the suit was essentially one for enforcing the mortgage and that the revenue court had the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the suit by reason of the provisions contained in the Tenancy Act. The Trial court dismissed the objection. Allowing the revision filed by the respondent, the High Court held that that the mortgage deed in respect of agricultural lands formed an essential part of the cause of action.It is admitted that the suit property is agricultural property and the appellant has filed a suit before the revenue court for the declaration of his khatedariThe appellant has prayed that the gift deed dated 10 February, 2011 be declared void to the extent of the share claimed by the appellant and that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 be restrained from alienating the share of the appellant. The civil court may decree the relief prayed only if it is first determined that the appellant is entitled to khatedari rights in the suit property. Under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, the jurisdiction to declare khatedari rights vests exclusively with the revenue courts. Only after such determination may the civil court proceed to decree the relief as prayed. The explanation to Section 207 clarifies that if the cause of action in respect of which relief is sought can be granted only by the revenue court, then it is immaterial that the relief asked from the civil court is greater than, or in addition to or not identical with the relief which the revenue court would have granted. In view of this matter, the civil court may not grant relief until the khatedari rights of the appellant have been decreed by a revenue court.19. A claimant whose khatedari rights have been decreed by a revenue court is however on a different footing from a claimant whose khatedari rights are pending adjudication by a revenue court. Where the khatedari rights are yet to be decreed, a claimant must first approach the revenue courts. The relief to declare the gift deed void and to restrain respondents Nos. 1 to 5 from interfering with or alienating the property vesting in a civil court may be sought for in a suit by a claimant in whom khatedari rights have been decreed by a revenue court.Though the above principles emerge in the context of the bar under Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the logic of the judgment extends to the bar under Section 207 read with Section 256 of the the Tenancy Act. A recorded khatedar stands on a different footing compared to a claimant seeking a decree of their khatedari rights. A claimant seeking a decree of khatedari rights is barred from filing a suit in the civil court prior to their khatedari right being decreed by a revenue court when the relief sought for by the civil court includes a determination of khatedari rights.22. In the present case, the High Court has proceeded on the basis that the suit seeking a declaration of the gift deed relating to disputed agricultural land situated in Sikar as void and restraining Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 from transfer or sale of the agricultural land before the civil court is squarely covered by the bar to the jurisdiction of the civil court under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The claim of the appellant to khatedari rights is pending adjudication by a revenue court which has the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such a claim. The appellant has no right to seek relief before the civil court without first getting his khatedari rights decreed by the revenue court