HANUMAN Vs. RAMESHWAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner - defendant has filed this revision petition under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC') to challenge the order impugned dated 09.02.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Raisinghnagar, whereby learned Court below has dismissed his application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC in a suit for declaration of testamentary instrument null and void. Besides that respondent - plaintiffs have also claimed the relief that their share in the agricultural land, which is part of the alleged Will, be also entered in their names in the revenue record. Precisely, the suit is based on the fact that the Will, allegedly executed by Suleman in favour of petitioner, is a forged and spurious document. Alleging serious manipulation and manoeuvring on the part of petitioner - defendant, respondent - plaintiffs have pleaded that the Will was got registered by the petitioner in his favour while depriving them of their respective share in the property.

(2.) Learned Court below, after hearing the rival submissions, examined the matter threadbare and while laying stress on the main relief, i.e. cancellation of the Will, allegedly executed by the testator, has declined the prayer of the petitioner for rejection of the plaint on the strength of the consequential reliefs for entering their names in the revenue records for their respective share in the agricultural land.

(3.) Mr. Rajesh Prajapat, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the suit, as such is barred by law. According to learned counsel, Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act envisaged that a suit, which is cognisable by a Revenue Court is barred in any other Court including the Civil Court. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 232/2011 (Shiv Narain and Ors. v. Rajendra Singh and Ors.), decided on 27th March, 2014.