Summary
An unrecorded claimant seeking to invalidate a gift deed affecting agricultural land first had to obtain a revenue-court declaration of his disputed khatedari rights. The civil relief depended on that determination, which the Rajasthan Tenancy Act reserved to revenue courts. The position differed from that of a recorded tenure holder or a claimant whose rights had already been decreed. Rejection of the civil plaint was upheld.
Issues
- Whether a civil suit challenging a gift deed and seeking injunction could proceed while the claimant’s khatedari rights remained pending before the revenue court.
Provisions considered
- Sections 88, 207 and 256; Third Schedule, entry 5, Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955Declaration of tenancy rights was exclusively for the revenue court; additional or differently framed civil relief did not avoid that bar when dependent on that declaration. (¶¶ 12–16, 18–22)
- Order VII Rule 11(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The plaint was liable to rejection where its averments disclosed a suit barred by the statutory allocation of jurisdiction. (¶¶ 7, 17–23)
Held
- Jurisdiction depended on the substance of the matter. Section 207’s explanation made it immaterial that civil relief was greater than, additional to or different from relief available in revenue proceedings. Sections 88 and the Third Schedule reserved the declaration of the claimed rights to the revenue court. (¶ 11–16)
- The requested invalidation of the gift deed and injunction depended first on establishing the appellant’s khatedari rights. Those rights were pending adjudication; the appellant could not obtain civil relief before having them decreed by the revenue court. (¶¶ 17–19, 22)
- A recorded tenure holder whose title was not under cloud, or a claimant whose khatedari rights had already been decreed, stood differently. The precedent concerning cancellation for fraud by a recorded holder did not justify this suit before determination of the appellant’s rights. (¶ 19–21)
Result
Appeals dismissed; High Court’s rejection of the civil plaint on the statutory jurisdictional bar upheld. No order as to costs.