Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Pyarelal, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that a gift deed dated 10 February 2011 was void to the extent of his share in agricultural land, and for an injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the property. The appellant claimed that upon the death of Mangalram and Rukma Devi, the land devolved upon respondent No. 3 and Kushali Devi (the appellant's mother) in equal shares. After Kushali Devi's death, her share devolved upon the appellant and respondent Nos. 7 to 10. The appellant alleged that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 colluded to record respondent No. 3 as the owner and then executed a gift deed in favour of respondent No. 1. The respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, contending that the civil court lacked jurisdiction because the appellant had also filed a suit before the revenue court for declaration of khatedari rights. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that the question of jurisdiction required framing of preliminary issues and evidence. The Rajasthan High Court, in revision, allowed the application and rejected the plaint, holding that the suit was barred by Sections 88 and 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. The Court held that the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred only in respect of suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule to the Tenancy Act. The suit for declaration that a gift deed is void to the extent of the plaintiff's share does not necessarily fall within the Third Schedule, and the bar under Section 256 is not absolute. The Court emphasized that an application under Order VII Rule 11 must be decided based solely on the plaint averments, and the High Court erred by going beyond the plaint. The matter was remanded to the trial court for framing preliminary issues and deciding the question of jurisdiction after recording evidence.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Section 9 CPC - Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers civil courts to try all suits of a civil nature unless expressly or impliedly barred by any statute. The presumption is in favour of civil court jurisdiction. (Para 11) B) Rajasthan Tenancy Act - Bar to Jurisdiction of Civil Courts - Section 256 - Section 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 bars civil courts from trying suits or proceedings with respect to matters arising under the Act for which a remedy is provided under the Act. However, the bar is not absolute and applies only to matters specified in the Third Schedule. (Para 12) C) Rajasthan Tenancy Act - Exclusive Jurisdiction of Revenue Courts - Section 207 - Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 provides that suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined exclusively by revenue courts. The explanation clarifies that if the cause of action is one for which relief could be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief sought from the civil court is greater or additional. (Para 13) D) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC - An application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by law must be decided based on the averments in the plaint and the documents filed by the plaintiff. The court cannot go beyond the plaint. (Para 15-16) E) Rajasthan Tenancy Act - Third Schedule - Suits for Declaration of Khatedari Rights - The Third Schedule to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 specifies suits and applications cognizable by revenue courts, including suits for declaration of khatedari rights. However, a suit seeking declaration that a gift deed is void to the extent of the plaintiff's share, without seeking declaration of khatedari rights, may not fall within the Third Schedule. (Para 13-14) F) Precedent - Bank of Baroda v. Moti Bhai, (1985) 1 SCC 475 - The Supreme Court held that a loan given by a bank to an agriculturist, being a commercial transaction, is outside the contemplation of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and the civil court has jurisdiction. The bar under Sections 207 and 256 applies only to matters arising under the Act. (Para 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit seeking declaration that a gift deed is void to the extent of the plaintiff's share, when the plaintiff has also filed a suit before the revenue court for declaration of khatedari rights, in light of Sections 207 and 256 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the Rajasthan High Court dated 13 November 2014 and 2 March 2015, and remanded the matter to the trial court for framing preliminary issues and deciding the question of jurisdiction after recording evidence. The Court held that the High Court erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC without considering that the jurisdiction issue required determination of facts.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of civil courts
- Bar under Section 256 Rajasthan Tenancy Act
- 1955
- Exclusive jurisdiction of revenue courts under Section 207
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC
- Inherent lack of jurisdiction
