RUKMANI Vs. BHOLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant has preferred this Civil Misc. Appeal against the order dated 9.9.1993 passed by Civil Judge, Sikar in Regular Civil Suit No. 42/93 (93/87) whereby the plaint was returned for presenting it in a competent Court by the reason that it was found that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant. The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this Civil Misc. Appeal are that the appellant filed a suit on 10.8.85 for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 4.7.85 with the averment that the agriculture land, regarding which the above sale deed has been executed by the respondent-defendant-Bhola in favour of remaining defendants, being ancestral land, the deceased-husband of the appellant had share whereas his father defendant-respondent-Bhola has remaining share and after the death of her husband, the appellant has share in it and the defendant-respondent-Bhola was not entitled to sale whole of the land in dispute. It was also averred in the plaint that the sale deed dated 4.7.85 is in-operative and in-effective against the rights of the plaintiff-appellant and, therefore, it is liable to be cancelled by the Court below. The defendant-respondents jointly filed written statement and it was averred by them that the land in dispute is not an ancestral land and in the life time of defendant-Shri Bhola his deceased son Shri Jeevan Ram has no right in it and, therefore, the plaintiff also has no right in it and the defendant-Shri Bhola has an absolute right to sale the disputed land. A specific objection regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court was also taken to the effect that the suit is barred by Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') as infact the relief claimed by the plaintiff-appellant is regarding declaration of her khatedari rights in the disputed land and such relief can be obtained only through a revenue suit filed in a competent revenue court under the provisions of the Act. It was also averred in the written statement that on the same facts, the plaintiff has already filed a revenue suit in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Fatehpur (District Sikar), On the basis of the pleadings, necessary issues were framed by the Court below and issue No. 4 was to the effect that whether that Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Both the parties adduced evidence and the learned Court below decided issue No. 4 regarding jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and after a thoughtful consideration it came to a conclusion that looking to the facts of case and the relief claimed by the plaintiff, infact, the suit is for declaration of khatedari rights in the land in dispute and such relief can be given only by a competent revenue Court under the provisions of the Act. With this finding, the plaint was returned to the plaintiff-appellant for presenting it in a competent revenue court. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff is before this Court by way of this Civil Misc. Appeal.

(2.) Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a well settled legal position that jurisdiction of a Court is to be decided upon the averments made in the plaint and the relief claimed by the plaintiff and for that purpose written statement filed by the defendant cannot be taken into consideration and in the present case as the only relief claimed by the plaintiff-appellant was for the cancellation of sale deed dated 4.7.85 and such relief can be given only by a Civil Court and, therefore, the Court below was competent to entertain and decide the present suit but the learned Court below without considering the matter in a right perspective wrongly came to a conclusion that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submitted that it is equally well settled that one should not introduce anything into the plaint which may not really be found there or which may be foreign to its main purpose. It was also submitted that the learned Court below overlooked the case actually pleaded by the plaintiff-appellant but based his order on the pleadings that ought to have been made by him. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the cases of Ghani Mohammed vs. Meeru Khan, 1954 RajLW 169 and Kailash Chand vs. Bajrang Lal & ors., 1997 AIR(Raj) 205.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the impugned order, submitted that the well settled legal position is that substance of the plaint and not the frame of the suit is to be considered for arriving at a conclusion whether civil or revenue court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. In the present case, although the relief claimed was for cancellation of the sale deed but that relief cannot be given unless the Court first comes to a conclusion that the plaintiff or her husband infact has share in the land in dispute and for that purpose declaration to that affect has to be given and as the land in dispute is an agricultural land, that declaration can be granted only by a competent revenue Court under the provisions of the Act. According to learned counsel, therefore, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under Section 207 of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondents, relied upon the case of Mohanlal vs. Ratna, 1971 AIR(Raj) 164.