Only Civil Courts Can Decide Disputes Regarding Cancellation Of Voidable Sale Deed Concerning Agricultural Land: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has held that in case allegations in a plaint make out a case of the transfer of a property being voidable, only the civil courts shall have jurisdiction, and not the revenue courts, irrespective of the disputed property being an agricultural land and a bar on the same under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“the Act”).Section 207 of the Act lays...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that in case allegations in a plaint make out a case of the transfer of a property being voidable, only the civil courts shall have jurisdiction, and not the revenue courts, irrespective of the disputed property being an agricultural land and a bar on the same under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (“the Act”).
Section 207 of the Act lays down that certain suits and applications relating to agricultural land must be heard and determined exclusively by a revenue court.
The bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma was hearing a revision petition challenging order of the Trial Court that rejected petitioner's application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, seeking dismissal of the suit filed by respondent.
The respondent had filed a suit seeking cancellation of sale deed between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 alleging that the subject land was not solely owned by respondent no. 2 and even she had acquired right in the same by birth. Hence, respondent no. 2 could not have sold the agricultural land to the petitioner.
Against this suit, the petitioner filed an application seeking dismissal on the ground that the subject land was an agricultural land and as per Section 207 of the Act, the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute vested only with the Revenue Courts. This application was rejected by the Trial Court against which revision petition was filed.
After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to the Rajasthan High Court case of Maniram v Mamkori in which it was held that,
“if the allegation in the plaint/substance of the allegations in the plaint allege the instrument to be void and no cancellation is required and without seeking such cancellation the relief of declaration pertaining to tenancy rights with regard to the agricultural land in question can be obtained by the plaintiff, only the revenue courts… However, 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.”
In this light, the Court observed that civil court was vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes pertaining to cancellation of a sale deed that was voidable in nature. Since, in the present case, the issue raised in the plaint pertained to the sale deed being voidable, the civil court had jurisdiction, and the bar under Section 207 of the Act, had no application.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Title: Sohan Singh v Rajkidevi & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 257
Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Vikram Sharma
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Avin Chhangani & Mr. Avinash Bhati