JAGAN SINGH Vs. CHOTEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF-respondent Chotey Lal filed the suit out of which this appeal arises in the court of Munsiff Sikar for cancellation of a sale deed and for possession of the land in dispute Khasra Nos. 318, 373 and 379 situated in Sikar measuring 7 Bighas. He alleged that the defendant by practising fraud got a sale deed of the land in question executed by him on 15-9-61 in the defendant's favour without paying any price. It was further alleged that the sale was void ab initio being in contravention of sec. 42, second proviso (b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as the plaintiff was a member of Scheduled Tribe. It was prayed that the sale-deed dated 15-9-61 be declared void ab initio and a decree for possession of the land in dispute and the dwelling house standing thereon be granted in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the defendant inter alia on the ground that it was exclusively triable by a revenue court and was not maintainable in civil court. THE learned Munsiff tried the suit on merits and in the result held that the plaintiff had failed to prove fraud as well as lack of consideration. However, he came to the conclusion that the sale was was void-ab-initio being in contravention of the provisions of sec. 42 of the Act. As to the question of jurisdiction, he found that residential land was involved in the suit along with the agricultural land and, therefore, the suit was triable by civil court. In the result he decreed the suit as prayed.

(3.) NOW, in the present case the cause of action is no doubt the factum of sale alleged to be void-ab-initio and the real and substantial relief is for possession of the land and the dwelling house standing thereon. That is the real contest between the parties and that is also the substance of the suit. This relief, it cannot be gainsaid can be granted only by revenue court and not by the civil court. In such circumstances the revenue court after coming to the conclusion that the document was completely void and ineffectual to pass the title to the transferee can grant a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff. In this view of the matter I have no doubt that the present suit is triable by revenue court.