GAJANAND Vs. OMPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner defendant (father of plaintiffs) aggrieved from order dtd. 23/8/2023 in civil suit no. 71/2022 passed by learned Civil Judge Sikrai, District Dausa whereby application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner defendant while placing reliance upon grounds of revision petition submitted that the plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for declaration of gift deed dtd. 10/6/2022 as null and void and also for permanent injunction against their father and same is not maintainable as the plaintiffs are not a recorded khatedar (tenant) of land in question. He further submitted that there is no khatedari right either for cultivation or recorded in any of revenue record in favour of plaintiffs. He also submitted that without seeking a declaration of right as a tenant, the plaintiffs have no right to file a civil suit against a recorded tenant to declare gift deed as null and void. He further submitted that after filing of present suit the plaintiffs have filed a revenue suit to declare their khatedari right and present suit is not maintainable. He also submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering identical circumstances in case of Pyare Lal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) through Natural Guardian (Father) & Ors. reported in 2019 (3) SCC 692 has allowed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC thereby rejecting a plaint filed by plaintiff. At last, he submitted that the trial court has committed serious error while dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as the suit is barred by law under Ss. 207 and 256 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

(3.) Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent(s) plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs have challenged the document executed by present petitioner and to challenge any document the civil court is only competent court, thus the trial court has rightly dismissed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. He also referred the plaint and submitted that the plaintiffs have not sought any declaration with regard to their khatedari right and the jurisdiction of civil court is not barred under the law. He also submitted that the revenue entries are only for fiscal purpose and on the basis of these entries a suit of plaintiff cannot be rejected.