MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. MURTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order dated 15 -10 -2014 passed by the Board of Revenue (hereinafter 'the Board') dismissing petitioners' revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the 1955 Act') against the order dated 15 -10 -2013 passed by the Assistant Collector Kumher District Bharatpur whereby the petitioners' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondents -plaintiffs (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') filed a suit under Sections 88, 89 and 188 of the 1955 Act with regard to suit property mentioned in para No. 2 of the plaint stating it to be ancestral property and seeking a declaration that 7/8th part thereof fell to their share. It was alleged that the defendant No. 1 - -now the co -petitioner) on 27 -8 -2012 in respect of land not in the individual ownership of the defendant No. 1, and therefore the sale deed was null and void and so was liable to be declared void ab initio against the plaintiffs. It was stated that the plaintiffs had come into khatedari rights over 7/8 share of the suit land by way of devolution and yet the defendant No. 1 had unauthorisedly and unlawfully executed sale deed dated 27 -8 -2012 which was registered on 4 -10 -2012. A declaration in the circumstances was sought from the revenue court that the plaintiffs were khatedars of 7/8th share of the suit land and were entitled to be put in possession thereof.

(3.) THE Assistant Collector Kumher after hearing both the parties dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC vide order dated 15 -10 -2013. A revision petition thereagainst under Section 230 of the 1955 Act before the Board also met a similar fate and was dismissed on 15 -10 -2014. Both the courts below have held that in its pith and substance the plaint pertained to declaration of khatedari rights of the plaintiffs to the extent of 7/8th share in the suit land as the purported sale deed executed in regard thereto by the defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 was stated to be void ab initio. It was held that the relief in the suit was within Section 207 of the 1955 Act and was to be exclusively tried by the Revenue Courts, which alone had jurisdiction to address issues of declaration and possession qua agricultural land under Sections 88, 89 and 188 of the 1955 Act. The Assistant Collector Kumher held that the relief sought by the plaintiffs in their suit could be granted without setting aside or cancelling the sale deed dated 27 -8 -2012 executed in favour of defendant No. 2 by the defendant No. 1 on 27 -8 -2012 and subsequently registered on 4 -10 -2012. The Board has concurred with the conclusion of the Assistant Collector Kumher. Hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.