8 Assailing the decision of the High Court, learned companynsel for the appellant urged the following submissions The relief claimed in the suit is number companyered under Section 207 and the Third Schedule of the Tenancy Act and a civil companyrt has jurisdiction to decide the existing dispute and A suit before a civil companyrt is maintainable even though a suit for declaring khatedari rights has been filed before the revenue companyrt.
In reply, the appellant admitted that a suit had been filed before the revenue companyrt for the declaration of his khatedari right but companytended that the civil companyrt had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.
1 to 5 be restrained from alienating the suit property.
The objections were dismissed by Trial companyrt with the following observations So far as present application is companycerned, in the said application, the first ground taken by the defendants is that the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.
4 and 5 respectively.
The challenge was to an order dated 26 August 2013 of the Additional Civil Judge Junior Division , Sikar rejecting the objection to the jurisdiction of the civil companyrt to try the suit filed by the appellant.
By an order dated 13 November 2014, the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondents.
The appellant filed a petition for review before the High Court.
Relying on the averments in the plaint, the High Court held that the suit was barred by the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
The Rajasthan High Court allowed the revision by its judgement dated 13 November 2014.
Kushali Devi died intestate and her share devolved upon her children the appellant and respondent Nos.
3 The family tree of the appellant is depicted below Bholu deceased Mangalram deceased Rukma Devi wife, deceased Bhagwan Singh R3 Kushali Devi Pradeep Kumar R2 Shubhendra R1 Pyarelal Appellant Amrita R7 Shanti R8 Kamla R9 Santosh R10 The Sub Registrar and Tehsildar are respondent Nos.
The plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that his mother has one half share in the suit land hence on this point any companyclusion can be drawn only after framing a preliminary issue and recording evidence of the parties.
5 On 13 March 2012, the appellant filed a civil suit 1 against the respondents praying that the gift deed dated 10 February 2011 be declared void to the extent of the share claimed by the appellant and that respondent 1 62/2012 Nos.
3 and his sister Kushali Devi mother of the Plaintiff in equal shares.
3 The High Court observed thus Apparently and looking to the prayer of the plaintiff in the Trial companyrt, it can easily be said that the suit was triable only by the revenue companyrt under the provisions of Section 88 and Section 207 of the Act of 1955 and hence it can further be said that the suit from the averment in the plaint appears to be barred under the provisions of the Act of 1955 and the suit should have been rejected on that companynt alone under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 d of Code of Civil Procedure and hence the order dated 26.8.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge Jr. Div.
The appellant alleged that respondent Nos.
Therefore, civil companyrts have numberjurisdiction to try the present suit.
7 Respondent Nos.
6 On 26 August, 2013, the Trial companyrt dismissed the application, taking the view that any companyclusion on the question of jurisdiction can only be drawn after framing preliminary issues and recording evidence of the parties.
The appellant and respondent Nos.
7 to 10.
7 to 10 are number recorded kashtkar of the disputed land and they have already filed suit in the revenue companyrt for getting their khatedari right declared.
1 to 3 challenged the order of the Trial companyrt in revision under Section 115 of the Code.
Respondent Nos.
4 The appellant alleged that on the death of Mangalram and Rukma Devi, the agricultural land in question devolved upon respondent No.
7 to 10 in equal measure.
Appeal No.
The learned single Judge dismissed the petition on 2 March 2015.
3 recorded as the owner of the land belonging to the appellant and respondent Nos.
Thereafter, respondent Nos.
In this companytext, the defendants cited Rukmani v Bhola and others SB Civil Misc.
2 The appeals in the present case arise from two orders dated 13 November 2014 and 2 March 2015 of the Rajasthan High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
1 to 3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 19082 companytending that the appellant, who is number a recorded khatedar of the suit land, had filed a suit before the revenue companyrt for the declaration of his khatedari right and the suit preferred by the appellant before the Trial companyrt was liable to be dismissed.
553/1993 dated 20.12.2011, while plaintiff cited DNJ 2013 1 Rajasthan 358.
2 and 3 companyluded with the Sarpanch of the village and got the name of respondent No.
2 and 3 registered a gift deed dated 10 February 2011 in favour of respondent No.
7 to 10 claim to be in possession of their share in the suit property.
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1 Leave granted.
3 Tenancy Act 9 On the other hand, learned companynsel for the respondents has urged the following submissions The jurisdiction of a civil companyrt is barred in respect of suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule of the Tenancy Act ii A civil companyrt has numberjurisdiction to entertain a suit or proceeding with respect to any matter arising under the Tenancy Act or the Rules made under it, provided that a remedy by way of a suit, application or appeal or otherwise is provided in the Act and iii The issue of jurisdiction travels to the root of or to the inherent lack of jurisdiction.
