PYARELAL versus SHUBHENDRA PILANIA (MINOR) THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN (FATHER) SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR PILANIA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 717 · Decided: 29-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
717
PYARELAL
v.
SHUBHENDRA PILANIA (MINOR) THROUGH
NATURAL GUARDIAN (FATHER) SHRI PRADEEP
      KUMAR PILANIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1269-70 of 2019)
JANUARY 29, 2019
[U. U. LALIT AND
DR.  DHANANJAYA  Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
s. 9  – Jurisdiction of civil court  – Whether barred  – For
trying suit in respect of agricultural land for relief to declare the
gift deed void and to restrain respondent Nos. 1 to 5 from alienating
the property – While the suit of plaintiff before Revenue Court for
declaration of ‘Khatedari’ rights in respect of suit property was
pending – Held: Claim of the plaintiff to ‘Khatedari’ rights was
pending adjudication, by the Revenue Court which had exclusive
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such claim in view of s. 207 r/w s.
256, s. 88 and Third Schedule of Tenancy Act – The plaintiff had
no right to seek relief before the civil court without first getting his
‘Khatedari’  rights decreed by the Revenue Court  – Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955 – ss. 207, 256, 88 and Third Schedule.
Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaring gift deed in
respect of suit property (an agricultural land) as void and for
restraining the defendants (respondent Nos. 1 to 5) from alienating
the suit property. Appellant had also filed suit before Revenue
Court for declaration of his ‘Khatedari’ rights. Respondent Nos.
1 to 3 filed an application u/Or. VII r. 11 r/w s. 151 CPC contending
that civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Trial court
dismissed the application. High Court allowed the Revision
holding that the suit was barred by the provisions of Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 207 read with Section 256 of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil courts in respect of
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 717
717
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
718
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule
to the Tenancy Act. Sl. No. 5 in the Third Schedule read with
Section 207 of the Tenancy Act stipulates that a suit for the
declaration of a right provided in Section 88 would lie before a
revenue court. In a suit where the relief sought for is the
declaration of the right stipulated in Section 88, Sections 207 and
256 read with the Third Schedule bar the jurisdiction of civil courts
and vest jurisdiction exclusively with a revenue court. [Paras 14 ,
15][726-A-B; 727-A-B]
2. The civil court may decree the relief prayed (declaration
of gift deed in respect of suit property void) only if it is first
determined that the appellant is entitled to khatedari rights in
the suit property. Under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, the
jurisdiction to declare khatedari rights vests exclusively with the
revenue courts. Only after such determination may the civil court
proceed to decree the relief as prayed. The explanation to Section
207 clarifies that if the cause of action in respect of which relief is
sought can be granted only by the revenue court, then it is
immaterial that the relief asked from the civil court is greater
than, or in addition to or not identical with the relief which the
revenue court would have granted. In view of this matter, the
civil court may not grant relief until the khatedari rights of the
appellant have been decreed by a revenue court. [Para 18][728-
E-G]
3. Where the khatedari rights are yet to be decreed, a
claimant must first approach the revenue courts. The relief to
declare the gift deed void and to restrain respondents Nos. 1 to
5 from interfering with or alienating the property vesting in a
civil court may be sought for in a suit by a claimant in whom
khatedari rights have been decreed by a revenue court. [Para
19][728-G-H; 729-A]
4. A recorded khatedar stands on a different footing
compared to a claimant seeking a decree of their khatedari rights.
A claimant seeking a decree of khatedari rights is barred from
filing a suit in the civil court prior to their khatedari right being
decreed by a revenue court when the relief sought for by the
civil court includes a determination of khatedari rights. [Para
21][730-C-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
719
5. In the present case, the High Court has proceeded on
the basis that the suit seeking a declaration of the gift deed relating
to disputed agricultural land as void and restraining Respondent
Nos. 1 to 5 from transfer or sale of the agricultural land before
the civil court is squarely covered by the bar 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.