Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 315 (RAJ)

Heeranand v. Radheshyam

2009-02-02

G.K.TIWARI, KUSHAL SINGH

body2009
J.P. Mathur, Govt. Advocate, for State SINGH, C.—This is an appeal under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') against the judgment dated 6.7.2007 of Revenue Appellate Authority Sriganganagar by which he allowed the appeal filed before him under Section 223 of the Act and remanded the case to Sub-Divisional Officer for re-decision. 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 1 filed a suit against the appellant and respondent No. 2 under Section 88 and 53 of the Act before Sub-Divisional Officer Sriganganagar who by his judgment dated 20.2.2006 dismissed the suit as jurisdiction barred against which the respondent No. 1 plaintiff preferred on appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority Sriganganagar who by his impugned judgment dated 6.7.2007 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment dated 20.2.2006 and remanded the case for re-decision to trial Court. Aggrieved against the judgment dated 6.7.2007 the appellant has filed the instant appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the entire suit of the respondent No. 1 was based on Exhibit 8A which is an agreement in the shape of partnership deed. The trial Court rightly framed an issue No. 8 on the point of jurisdiction in view of the fact that the exhibit 8A agreement/ partnership deed cannot be adjudicated upon by the revenue Court as it falls within the domain of civil Court. This issue No. 8 was duly discussed and decided against the respondent-plaintiff with dismissal of the suit; but Revenue Appellate Authority has unnecessarily quashed the order of trial Court and ordered for re-framing of new issues which is unjustified and unwarranted. The disputed land belongs to the appellant only and the respondents have no right in this land. The disputed land does not belong to joint family. The very basis of the suit is agreement/partnership deed (Exhibit 8A) which has rightly been considered as beyond the jurisdiction of the revenue record. So the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority is erroneous which should be quashed. He cited 1968 RLW 375 pleading that matter pertaining to division of composite property on the basis of exhibit 8A can be decided by civil Court only. 5. So the judgment of Revenue Appellate Authority is erroneous which should be quashed. He cited 1968 RLW 375 pleading that matter pertaining to division of composite property on the basis of exhibit 8A can be decided by civil Court only. 5. Countering the arguments of the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that issue No. 8 pertaining to jurisdiction was framed on the application of the appellant-defendant only. No-where in the plaint has plaintiff-respondent made exhibit-8A as the very basis of filing of suit. This document is put up only as a supporting evidence to prove that disputed land is in joint tenancy as stated in the document exhibit 8-A which is a kind of family settlement only. Earlier 7 issues were framed but trial Court has not decided any of the seven issues but disposed of the case on the basis of an issue of jurisdiction framed arbitrarily at the behest of the appellant-defendant. The point of jurisdiction has to be decided on the basis of relief sought. The plaintiff-respondent has sought only relief of declaration of khatedari right and division of holding which is an agricultural land. This relief can only be given by revenue Court and not by civil Court. Hence suit was not barred by jurisdiction. The learned counsel cited 1994 RRD 107 and 1995 RRD 325 in support of his contention. 6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, carefully perused the impugned judgment of both the lower Courts and gone through the record available on the file. 7. It is apparent from perusal of the order of trial Court that Sub-Divisional Officer has dismissed the suit as barred by jurisdiction. In this regard trial Court framed additional issue No. 8 which is whether the revenue Court has jurisdiction to decide the suit filed. The trial Court has regarded exhibit 8A as an agreement relating to joint property of a joint family about which only a civil Court can adjudicate upon. Perusal of the plaint shows that plaintiff-respondent has prayed for relief of declaration of khatedari right under Section 88 of the Act in respect of the disputed land and division thereof under Section 53 of the Act. Perusal of the revenue record shows that the disputed land is agricultural land duly entered as such in corresponding revenue records. Perusal of the plaint shows that plaintiff-respondent has prayed for relief of declaration of khatedari right under Section 88 of the Act in respect of the disputed land and division thereof under Section 53 of the Act. Perusal of the revenue record shows that the disputed land is agricultural land duly entered as such in corresponding revenue records. Perusal of the record shows that exhibit 8A captioned 'Agreement' is an unregistered, unspecific, non-descript document. Plaintiff-respondent contends that he has produced it as documentary evidence in support of alleged family settlement. Trial Court has neither ascertained true nature of the 'Agreement' nor looked into its legality but dismissed the suit solely on the basis of this unregistered document. There is no evidence on record that the suit land is abadi land. Revenue records unambiguously describe it as agricultural land-dispute regarding which is triable by a revenue Court. The trial Court has also overlooked the prayer sought in the plaint which manifestly seeks declaration of khatedari right and division of holding under the Act-which relief squarely falls within the jurisdiction of a revenue Court. Thus, inference and adjudication of Sub-Divisional Officer on issue No. 8 dismissing the suit is patently illegal and cannot be supported. We are fortified in holding this view by the judgments reported in 1994 RRD 107 and 1995 RRD 325. The Revenue Appellate Authority has not committed any illegality in setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case in view of the fact that evidence on all the issues have not been led and trial Court has not dealt with all the issues. But Revenue Appellate Authority has also given an erroneous order that trial Court should re-frame issues afresh. There is no reason for reframing of all the issue afresh. There is already provision for amendment of issues which a party can resort to if considered necessary. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion the appeal does not sustain. It is dismissed accordingly. However, the direction of Revenue Appellate Authority Sriganganagar for framing of issues afresh is set aside. The case is remanded to Sub-Divisional Officer Sriganganagar for deciding the case issue wise on the basis of evidence adduced affording opportunity of hearing to rival parties. Pronounced.