Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned agricultural land measuring 75 bighas of unirrigated second-class land in Khasra No.294/506 at Village Jaimla, Tehsil Pokhran, District Jaisalmer. The land was originally allotted to the appellant's grandfather, late Chutra Ram, under Section 101 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, on account of his being landless. The appellant claimed that the property retained the character of ancestral/coparcenary property and that, as the son of respondent No.1, he acquired an undivided 1/9th share by birth. He alleged that respondent Nos.1 to 3, in collusion with respondent No.4, executed a registered sale deed dated 17.04.2025 without recognising his coparcenary interest or obtaining consent, and the property was subsequently alienated in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 7 by sale deeds dated 26.09.2025 and 29.09.2025. The appellant instituted a civil suit seeking declaration of his rights, permanent injunction, and cancellation of the registered sale deeds. During pendency, respondent No.7 was impleaded under Order I Rule 10 CPC and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the suit was not maintainable before the civil court absent a declaration from the competent revenue court recognising khatedari rights. The Additional District Judge, Pokhran, allowed the application and dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 10.02.2026. The appellant filed the present Civil First Appeal under Section 96 CPC. The core legal issues were whether the appellant had any existing coparcenary or khatedari right, whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action, and whether the civil court could entertain the suit without a prior revenue court declaration. The appellant argued that the property was ancestral, that he had acquired a share by birth, and that factual issues could not be decided at the threshold. The respondents contended that there was no pleading of HUF property or karta status, and that the foundational khatedari right had to be determined by the revenue court, relying on Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania, (2019) 3 SCC 692. The High Court held that the plaint lacked any specific averment that the allotment was made in favour of an HUF or that Chutra Ram held the land as karta. It found that upon Chutra Ram's intestate death on 24.04.2004, his three sons succeeded as Class I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the property devolved under Section 8, not as coparcenary property by birth. The court explained that Section 4 gives overriding effect but does not by itself determine the character of property. The court also held that without a revenue court declaration, the civil suit was not maintainable. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2026 passed by the trial court in Civil Original Case No.31/2025, upholding the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 11 - Maintainability of Suit for Declaration, Cancellation and Injunction - The plaint was rejected because it did not disclose any existing coparcenary or khatedari right in the appellant, and the foundational khatedari right in agricultural land as per Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 Section 101 had not been determined by the revenue court - The appellant sought declaration of rights, cancellation of sale deeds and permanent injunction, but the trial court allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the High Court upheld that rejection - Held that absent pleading of HUF/coparcenary property or revenue court declaration, the plaint was liable to be rejected at threshold (Paras 1-2, 6-6.9). B) Hindu Law - Coparcenary Rights - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Sections 4, 8 and Schedule - Intestate Succession Does Not Create Birth Right Without HUF Pleading - The appellant claimed 1/9th share as son of one of the sons of original allottee, but the plaint did not plead that the property was HUF or that Chutra Ram held as karta - Upon Chutra Ram's intestate death on 24.04.2004, his three sons succeeded as Class I heirs in equal shares, and the property devolved under Section 8, not as coparcenary property by birth - Held that mere descent from grandfather does not confer coparcenary right, and Section 4 gives overriding effect but does not determine character of property (Paras 6.1-6.9). C) Revenue Law - Khatedari Rights and Civil Court Jurisdiction - Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 Section 101 - Bar on Civil Court Absent Revenue Court Declaration - The appellant had not obtained any declaration from competent revenue court regarding his khatedari right or share; reliance placed on Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania, (2019) 3 SCC 692 - The High Court held that foundational khatedari right must first be determined by the revenue court before any consequential relief concerning alienation can be sought before the civil court - Held that civil suit not maintainable in absence of revenue court declaration (Paras 4-4.1, 6-6.9). D) Hindu Succession - Section 4 Overriding Effect - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Section 4 - Role and Scope - Section 4 gives overriding effect to statutory provisions over inconsistent Hindu law but does not determine the character of property as self-acquired, ancestral, joint family or coparcenary - The character must be determined with reference to source of acquisition, nature of right held by predecessor and manner of devolution - Held that Section 4 cannot be relied upon in isolation to create coparcenary right or characterise property as ancestral (Paras 6.7-6.8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether on the pleadings as they stand, the appellant had any existing coparcenary or khatedari right in the suit property so as to maintain a civil action for cancellation of the impugned sale deeds.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; judgment and decree dated 10.02.2026 passed by Additional District Judge, Pokhran in Civil Original Case No.31/2025 affirmed; trial court's rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC upheld.
Law Points
- Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC permissible where plaint discloses no cause of action
- coparcenary right must be pleaded with existence of HUF property
- property inherited by a Hindu male from his father after intestate succession is self-acquired in hands of heirs unless HUF/coparcenary established
- khatedari rights in agricultural land to be determined by revenue court before civil suit
- Section 4 Hindu Succession Act gives overriding effect but does not determine character of property
