Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 496 (RAJ)

Jagdish Prasad v. Ramvilas

2003-04-04

S.C.SINGHAL

body2003
SINGHAL, Member – Both these revisions have been directed against the order of Asstt. Collector, Lalsot, by which application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the appellants, has been dismissed. Since common question of facts and law is involved in these revisions hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment. (2). In short, the facts of the case are that in revision No. 26/99 Non-applicant Ramvilas filed a suit under Section 88 of the Act in the court of Asstt. Collector, Lalsot. In revision No. 27/99, the non-applicant Ramvilas filed a suit under Section 88 of the Act against Anantram and others in the court of Asstt. Collector, Lalsot stating that the disputed land was allotted to Jagdish Prasad and Anant Ram in the year 1971 and both were recorded exclusively as khatedars of the disputed land in the revenue records. In Svt. 2028 the disputed land had been sold to Ramvilas and possession had been handed over to him and since then he was cultivating the disputed land. It has also been stated that in the year 1974 Jagdish Prasad and Anant Ram executed an `Ikrarnama on the stamp of Rs. 50/- in which they have accepted the fact of sale. The non-applicant Ramvilas asked the applicants for executing sale deed on the basis of Ikrarnama but they did not execute it and on the basis of `Ikrarnama the non-applicant has acquired khatedari rights by adverse possession, therefore, he is entitled to be declared as khatedar on the disputed land. The applicants filed their reply in which they denied the averment of the plaint and also raised objection with regard to jurisdiction of the trial court in both the plaints the applicants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that on the basis of unregistered `Ikrarnama the non-applicant has got no right, title or interest in the disputed land and the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The trial court, after hearing the parties dismissed the application by the impugned order. (3). The learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the suit filed by the non-applicant is based on unregistered `Ikrarnama which does not confer any title in favour of the non- applicant. The trial court, after hearing the parties dismissed the application by the impugned order. (3). The learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the suit filed by the non-applicant is based on unregistered `Ikrarnama which does not confer any title in favour of the non- applicant. He has also contended that declaration of khatedari cannot be granted on the basis of agreement to sale and the suit, on the basis of agreement to sale, is cognizable by Civil Court only, hence learned trial court has erred in dismissing the application filed by them under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. He has placed reliance on Ramswaroop vs. Chhajulal and Ors. (1), and T Arivandanam vs. T.V. Satyapal (2). On the other hand, the learned counsel of the non-applicant has contended that the reply has already been filed by the applicants and after framing necessary issues the question regarding jurisdiction can be decided. It has also been argued that the suit filed by the non- applicant is not only based solely on the basis of agreement to sale but it has been specifically mentioned that the non- applicant has acquired khatedari rights by adverse possession. Therefore, without framing an issue about the maintainability of the suit if cannot be thrown out immediately. He has placed reliance on Rajasthan Housing Board Jodhpur vs. Surendra Nath (3) and Govind Gupta vs. Thakur Mohan Singh Kanota (4). (4). I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the record. (5). In para 2 of the plaint it has been stated that in the year 1971, i.e. Svt. 2028 ^vk"kk<+^ the disputed land has been sold to the non-applicant No.1 and possession has been handed over to him. In para 4 of the plaint execution of `Ikrarnama has been alleged on stamp of Rs. 50/- in the year 1974 and in para 7 it has specifically been mentioned that on the basis of `Ikrarnama of the year 1974 the non- applicant is in possession of the disputed land for more than 12 years, therefore, he has acquired khatedari rights. In the prayer clause of the plaint, it has nowhere been mentioned by the non- applicant that he is entitled to have a decree in his favour on the basis of agreement to sale or on the basis of agreement to sale he may be declared as khatedar tenant of the disputed land. In the prayer clause of the plaint, it has nowhere been mentioned by the non- applicant that he is entitled to have a decree in his favour on the basis of agreement to sale or on the basis of agreement to sale he may be declared as khatedar tenant of the disputed land. Therefore, it cannot be said that the non-applicant has sought declaration of khatedari on the basis of agreement to sale. I am fully in agreement with the view taken in 1992 RRD 414 in which it has been held that suit on the basis of agreement to sale is cognizable by civil court only. Since the applicant-defendant has already taken objection with regard to maintainability of the suit in the revenue court and also with regard to the jurisdiction of the court, therefore, these legal questions can be decided after framing necessary issues. In deciding the question of jurisdiction the court should not be led away by the form of the suit but to decide the question on the basis of pith and substance of the suit. The views attributed in AIR 1977 SC 2421 (supra) are quitedifferent from the facts of the present case. The Honble Apex Court has held in AIR 1977 SC 2421 (supra) that if on a meaningful- not formal- reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, the trial court should exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. The trial Court should insist imperatively on examining party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. If the trial court is satisfied that the litigation was inspired by vexatious motives and altogether groundless it should take deterrent action under Section 35-A. In the present suit, after reading the plaint it cannot be said that it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing clear right to sue. No doubt, the agreement to sale is not registered one and the non-applicants have averred in their plaint that they have paid the full amount and on the basis of that document no title could be passed to the non-applicant but unregistered document can also be read into evidence for collateral purposes, i.e., for possession etc. No doubt, the agreement to sale is not registered one and the non-applicants have averred in their plaint that they have paid the full amount and on the basis of that document no title could be passed to the non-applicant but unregistered document can also be read into evidence for collateral purposes, i.e., for possession etc. Since the non-applicant has pleaded that he is cultivating the land for more than 12 years and he has acquired khatedari rights by adverse possession, therefore, this issue can well be entertained and disposed of by the revenue court. I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. (6). In the result, both these revisions fail and are hereby dismissed. (7). Pronounced in the open court.