Safiya Malik

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court’s refusal to reject a civil suit seeking cancellation of a sale deed. The Court held that since the sale deed in question was voidable and not void, the jurisdiction to adjudicate rested with the civil court and not the revenue court. Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere with the trial court's finding and rejected the revision petition.

The petitioner had moved the High Court challenging the order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajsamand, dated 18.10.2023. In the said order, the trial court dismissed the petitioner-defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which sought rejection of the plaint for want of jurisdiction under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

Also Read: Supreme Court Bars Use Of WhatsApp, Electronic Means For Section 35 Notices | Reaffirms Personal Service Mandate To Protect Liberty

The respondent-plaintiff had instituted a civil suit seeking cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 03.03.2023 on the ground that the land sold was ancestral agricultural property, in which she had a birthright. The petitioner contended that since the subject matter was agricultural land, jurisdiction lay exclusively with the revenue courts.

The trial court rejected the application, holding that the relief sought—cancellation of a sale deed—was within the exclusive domain of the civil court, regardless of the agricultural nature of the land. Challenging this, the petitioner approached the High Court in revision.

Before the High Court, the petitioner’s counsel reiterated that the land being agricultural, the bar under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act applied. He relied on the Supreme Court’s judgement in Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania, (2019) 3 SCC 692, to argue that revenue courts had exclusive jurisdiction in disputes relating to agricultural land.

The respondent’s counsel argued that the civil court alone had the jurisdiction to cancel a sale deed and that the trial court's reasoning was in accordance with established precedent. He cited the decision in Balkesh v. Vimla & Ors., S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.186/2015, decided on 27.05.2024, in support.

After hearing both sides and reviewing the impugned order, the High Court observed in para 8 of the judgment: "the trial court vide order impugned dated 18.10.2023 rejected the application of the defendant solely on the premise that the relief sought by the plaintiff falls under the jurisdiction of the civil court as the jurisdiction to declare any document illegal and void is only and only with the civil court."

The Court framed the legal issue in para 9: "whether the civil court has the jurisdiction to decide the suit pertaining to agricultural land in light of provisions of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955?"

Upon examining the nature of the relief sought in the plaint, the Court held that the sale deed was a voidable instrument, and such suits fell within civil court jurisdiction. Citing Maniram vs Mamkori, 2021(2) DNJ (Raj.) 610, and Hasti Cement, the Court held:

"if the allegations made in the plaint make out a case of document being voidable, relief of cancellation of such a voidable document can only be granted by civil court and irrespective of the fact that the instrument pertains to agricultural land, the suit would not be barred under Section 207 of the Tenancy Act."

The Court also referred to Hemant Godara & Anr. Vs. Banwarilal & Ors., SB Civil First Appeal No.180/2016 decided on 10.09.2020, which similarly held that civil courts retained jurisdiction in cases where the instrument was voidable.

Also Read: Director Can Be Disqualified Across All Companies, But Only for 5 Years: Karnataka High Court | Calls S.164 a Reasonable Restriction Under Article 19(1)(g)

In its conclusion, the Court stated : "Upon a comprehensive examination of the precedents cited hereinabove and a meticulous appraisal of the legal position, it may be conclusively articulated that the civil court is vested with the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate disputes pertaining to the cancellation of a sale deed that is voidable in nature."

Thus, the revision petition was rejected. The Court found no jurisdictional error in the trial court’s order and concluded there was no failure of justice or material irregularity. The judgment concluded that: "The impugned order has neither occasioned in any failure of justice, nor there is any material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction by learned trial Court."

"Accordingly, the revision petition fails and the same is hereby rejected. Stay petition also stands disposed of."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikram Sharma

For the Respondents: Mr. Avin Chhangani & Mr. Avinash Bhati for Respondent No. 3 to 7

Case Title: Sohan Singh v. Rajkidevi & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:33456

Case Number: S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 229/2023

Bench: Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma