Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 602 (RAJ)

Moti Lal v. Jagdish Prasad

2000-05-09

P.P.NAOLEKAR

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - Facts in brief are that plaintiff non petitioners Jagdish Prasad and Radheyshyam have filed two suits; one revenue suit No. 244/83 in the court of the Sub Divisional Officer Bayana on 27.10.1983 claiming declaration of khatedari right over 1/15 share in Khasra nos. 618, 619 and 625 situated in village Singhara, Tehsil Bayana and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. Plaintiffs have filed another suit in the court of Munsif, Bayana, which is pending in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bayana, on 31.10.1983 for cancellation of sale deeds executed on 16.8.1982 by Parsad and others in favour of defendants. 2. Allegations on the basis of which two suits were filed and which are relevant for disposal of the present appeal, in brief, are that Bidha son of Chiranji, by registered sale deed dated 17.8.1977, transferred his share in Khata No. 292, 293 and 294 for a consideration of rupees six thousand. Khasra No. 294 consists of khasra No. 618, 619 and 625 wherein Bidha had 1/15 share and the plaintiff were placed in possession of their share was purchased from Bidha alongwith Parsadi, Mangla, Pyare and Ram Swaroop who had 4/15 share in the aforesaid Khasra numbers. But in the revenue records instead of 4/15 share, ⅓ share in the suit khasras was recorded in the name of Parsadi. Mangla, Pyare and Ram Swaroop. By registered sale deed dated 16.8.1982 Parsadi, Pyare, Ram Swaroop and Ramji Lal have transferred one-third share in stead of their 4/15 share in khasra nos. 618, 619 and 625 to the defendants Kedar. Moti, Madan and Lakhan Lal which has included 1/15 share of plaintiff appellants also. That the defendants by virtue of the sale deed executed in their favour are threatening the plaintiffs to dispossesss them from 1/15 share purchased by them by registered sale deed dated 17.8.1977 and, therefore, suit for declaration of their right, title, interest and injunction was filed. On the same allegations, the plaintiffs have claimed cancellation the sale deeds executed on 16.8.1982 so far it relates to transfer of the share of the plaintiff appellants i.e. 1/15 share in khasra nos. 618, 619 and 625. 3. Moti Lal, defendant petitioner no. 1 in this revision petition, filed an application on 8.1.1991 under Section 10 of the C.P.C. for the stay of civil suit. 618, 619 and 625. 3. Moti Lal, defendant petitioner no. 1 in this revision petition, filed an application on 8.1.1991 under Section 10 of the C.P.C. for the stay of civil suit. The trial court vide its order dated 12.5.1999 rejected the application filed by Moti Lal on the ground that the revenue court has no jurisdiction or authority to cancel the sale deeds executed on 16.8.1982 of khasra nos. 618, 619 and 625. Aggrieved by the said order the present revision petition is filed. 4. It may be seen from the allegations made in the suits that success of the plaintiff in both the suits depends on the proof of right, title and interest of 1/15 share in khasra nos. 618, 619 and 625. If they can successfully prove the right, title and interest in the suit land, they would be entitled for declaration of their khatedari right to the extent of their 1/15 share in the suit property and also protect their possession by obtaining relief of injunction. Similarly the plaintiffs will succeed in their suit for cancellation of sale deed to the extent of their share in khasra nos. 618, 619 and 625 if they can prove their right, title and interest in the suit property. Thus the main relief in the suit is declaration for declaration of right, title and interest in the suit property. The relief for cancellation of the sale deed is an ancillary relief dependent upon the order being passed in favour of the plaintiffs of declaration of right, title and interest in the suit property. 5. The policy of law under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code is to confine the plaintiff to one litigation to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting verdict from the courts. If the revenue court and civil court both are permitted to proceed with the trial of the suit, there is a possibility of conflicting verdict inasmuch as there may be conflicting decisions on the question of right, title and interest of the plaintiff's 1/15 share in khasra nos. to 618, 619 and 625. To avoid this possibility the court can exercise jurisdiction of staying the proceedings under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code even if Section 10 of the C.P.C. in terms do not apply. 6. to 618, 619 and 625. To avoid this possibility the court can exercise jurisdiction of staying the proceedings under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code even if Section 10 of the C.P.C. in terms do not apply. 6. The aim of legislature in enacting various propositions of law or procedure is also to secure the ends of justice. In the case, like this court can is exercise inherent powers. The stay under Section 10 of the C.P.C. is imposed by the court itself. It is not imposed by any other outside agency. The trial court has failed to see that the decree for cancellation of the sale deed could only be granted if there is a decree in favour of the plaintiffs declaring their right, title and interest in the suit property. By virtue of section 207 read with, third schedule of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, suit for declaration of any right in the land and declaration `khudkast is exclusively triable only by the revenue court and the decree for declaration of title would be the step required to be taken prior to a decree for cancellation of sale deed is granted, in the facts of the present case. Since the exclusive jurisdiction is vested with the revenue court of declaration of right, title and interest in the agriculture land, in the absence of such decree, no decree could be passed by the civil court in favour of the plaintiffs. Civil Court independently could not pass any decree for cancellation of the sale deed unless the right, title and interest of the plaintiff is established which could only be established before so the revenue court. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case it would have been appropriate for the civil court to stay its hands to proceed with the civil suit unless and until the revenue suit is decided by the revenue court. Consequently, the order of the trial court dated 12.5.1999 is set aside and the proceedings in Civil suit no. 21/99, Jagdish Prasad & Another v. Parsadi & Others are stayed till the decision for the revenue suit no. 244/83.Revision Allowed. *******