JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against order dated 13.2.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nimbahera in Civil Suit No. 36/2008, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner/defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. stands rejected. 2. The respondent/plaintiff preferred a suit inter alia against the petitioner/defendant for declaration, partition, cancellation of sale deed and permanent injunction in respect of agriculture land ad measuring 38 bighas 6 biswas comprising Khasra Nos. 191, 684, 724, 18 and 733 of revenue village Pipalwas. It is alleged that the said land was khatedari land of Hazari, the father of plaintiff-Sint. Jhamku, defendant No. 3-Shambhu and defendant No. 4- Shanker. The defendant No. 1-Pratapi, the petitioner herein, who is widow of elder brother of deceased Hazari sold one half portion of 6 bighas and 10 biwas land comprising Khasra No. 18 vide registered sale deed dated 24.1.2008 in favour of defendant No. 2-Smt. Shanti Bai. It is averred that the defendant No. 1, the petitioner herein, had no right whatsoever to sale the land inherited by the plaintiff, the respondent No. 1 herein, and his brothers Shambhu and Shanker, the defendants No. 3 and 4, he respondents No. 3 and 4 respectively herein. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed against the defendant No. 1, the petitioner herein and for partition of the land against her brothers, the defendants No. 3 and 4. The suit is being contested by the petitioner by filing a written statement thereto. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the subject matter of the suit is covered under Schedule III of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ("the Act") and therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred by virtue of provisions of Section 207 of the Act. It was contended that since according to the plaintiff, the defendant-petitioner has no right whatsoever in the land in question and therefore, the sale deed executed being not binding upon her, she is not required to obtain a decree for cancellation of sale deed and only the declaration regarding the sale deed being null and void would be sufficient, the relief which could always be granted by the Revenue Court. 4. 4. The application has been rejected by the trial Court by the order impugned holding that the plaintiff has claimed the relief of cancellation of the sale deed which cannot be granted by the Revenue Court and therefore, in view of the composite cause of action, the suit cannot be treated to be barred by law. The Court observed that for the protection of their right and interest, the parties can always file a suit for cancellation of the sale deed which is null and void. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error of law while giving the finding that on the basis of composite cause of action, the civil Court can try the suit notwithstanding that the subject matter of the suit is covered under Schedule III of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ("the Act") and thus, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not barred by virtue of provisions of Section 207 of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that as laid down by this Court is the matter of "Asia v. Narain", 1963 RRD, 239 , even the suit which does not squarely falls within the four walls of the Third Schedule attached to the Act but which may partake the-nature thereof can be heard and determined by the Revenue Courts only. Learned counsel submitted that the true nature of the relief claimed in suit can be determined from the pith and substance of the pleadings and not from the form in which relief is framed. Learned counsel submitted that when a suit is filed by a tenant to cancel a document but the relief sought also amounting to declaration of his share in the land in terms of Section 88 and Item No. 5 of Schedule 3, the suit can lie only in Revenue Court. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the matter of "Mohanlal v. Ratna", AIR 1971 Rajasthan 167 . In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the matter of "Mohanlal v. Ratna", AIR 1971 Rajasthan 167 . Relying upon a decision of this Court in the matter of "Rukmani v. Bhola & Ors.", 2012(2) WLC(Raj.) 797, learned counsel submitted that in a suit for cancellation of sale deed of agriculture land, where the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed but essentially seeking the declaration that he is khatedar, the Revenue Court is competent to decreed the suit alongwith consequential relief that the sale deed is not binding to the extent of share of the plaintiff in the land and thereafter, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to institute suit for cancellation. Learned counsel submitted that unless a clear finding is given that the plaintiff is a co-tenant and has ⅓rd share in the land in question, the sale deed executed by the petitioner herein cannot be cancelled and therefore, the suit as framed is not maintainable before the civil Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the respondent/plaintiff has questioned the validity of the title conveyed under the sale deed on the ground that the petitioner/defendant is not holding any title and therefore, such dispute could be adjudicated only by the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Bismillah v. Janeshwar Prasad & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 540 , and "Margret Almeida & Ors. v. Bombay Catholic Cooperative Housing Society Limited & Ors.", (2012) 5 SCC, 642 . Relying upon decisions of this Court in "Shayam Kumar & Ors. v. Budh Singh & Ors.", 1977 WLN 51 , "Bhanwaroo Khan & Ors. v. Azim Khan & Ors.", 1993(1) WLC 491, learned counsel submitted that where the relief mainly sought in the suit is cancellation of sale deed, the Revenue Court is not competent to grant such a relief and therefore, jurisdiction of civil Court to try suit is not barred under Section 207 of the Act. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the plaint can be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 only when it is apparent from the pleadings that the suit is barred by law, which is not the position in the instant case, therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer made. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the plaint can be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 only when it is apparent from the pleadings that the suit is barred by law, which is not the position in the instant case, therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer made. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in the matter of "Smt. Dev Bai v. Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Kota & Ors.," 2012(3) WLC(Raj.) 289 . 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record and decisions cited at the bar. 8. It is to be noticed that while deciding an application for rejection of the plaint in terms of provisions of Order 7, Rule 11 (a), the Court is not competent to go into correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the plaint, constituting the cause of action. In other words, whether a plaint discloses a cause of action or not has to be determined on the basis of the allegations contained in the plaint and not beyond it. If averments made in the plaint prima facie discloses the cause of action, the plaint cannot be rejected. Similarly, from perusal of the plaint, it must appear that suit as framed is barred by law. 9. It is settled law that in all types of civil disputed, civil Courts have inherent jurisdiction unless a part of that jurisdiction is carved out from such jurisdiction expressly or by necessary implication. 10. Indisputably, Section 207 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court in respect of all the suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule. Further, by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 207, no Court other than Revenue Court could take cognizance of any such suits or applications or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which relief could be claimed by means of any such suit or application. 11. In Asala's case (supra), this Court held that the gist of Section 207 of the Act is that all suits and applications "of the nature" specified in Third Schedule thereof shall be heard and determined by a Revenue Court. 11. In Asala's case (supra), this Court held that the gist of Section 207 of the Act is that all suits and applications "of the nature" specified in Third Schedule thereof shall be heard and determined by a Revenue Court. The Court observed that phrase "of the nature" occurring in the said section denotes that suit which not only squarely fall within the four walls of the various items specified in the Third Schedule but also those which may not so fall but which may partake of the nature thereof, can be heard and determined by a Revenue Court only. The Court emphasised that the said section further enacts that no Court other than a Revenue Court shall take cognizance of such suit or application or of any suit or application which is based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application in a Revenue Court. 12. In Sukhpal Singh's case (supra), relied upon by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court while relying upon its earlier decisions and decisions of other High Courts, precisely held that whether the suit is solely cognizable by a Revenue Court or is impliedly cognizable by a civil Court, the cause of action of the suit has to be strictly scrutinised and where on a definite cause of action, two or more reliefs can be claimed, which of the relief is the main relief and which relief or other reliefs, is/are ancillary reliefs would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. 13. In Mahanlafs case (supra), the Court observed that the true nature of the relief claimed in a suit can be determined from pith and substance of the pleadings and not from the form in which relief is framed. In the said case, after considering the pleadings, the Court arrived at the finding that the relief claimed in the suit really amounted to a relief for a declaration that the plaintiff had half share in the land in question. Accordingly, it was held that there was inherent lack of jurisdiction in the civil Court to try the suit and grant appropriate relief. 14. Accordingly, it was held that there was inherent lack of jurisdiction in the civil Court to try the suit and grant appropriate relief. 14. In Rukmani's case (supra), where in a suit filed before the civil Court, the plaintiff sought cancellation of the sale deed of agriculture land wherein she was not party but in essence sought declaration that she is khatedar of the land, this Court held that the Revenue Court is competent to decree the suit alongwith consequential relief that sale deed is not binding to the extent of share of the plaintiff in the land. 15. In Margret Almeida's case (supra), relied upon by the counsel appearing for the respondent, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that where any party disputes the validity of title conveyed under a conveyance, necessarily such a dispute would have to be adjudicated by a competent civil Court under Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure wherein necessarily the question whether valid title was conveyed would arise for determination. 16. In Shayam Kumar's case (supra) this Court held that where the relief mainly sought is cancellation of the sale deed, the Revenue Court is not competent to grant such relief. 17. Similarly, in Bhanwaroo Khan's case (supra), where the plaintiffs though stranger to the instrument of the sale deed but sought to adjudge the sale deed void and to get it cancelled, the Court found that the suit filed was mainly for cancellation of the sale deed and all the other reliefs are ancillary and as such the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not barred. 18. In the backdrop of the position of law settled by various decisions discussed as above, there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that when in a suit ancillary relief to the main relief sought is for declaration of a sale deed of an agriculture land as void ab initio, the suit can always be entertained and tried by the Revenue Court. But then, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court, in no manner, bars the jurisdiction of civil Court in entertaining the suit for cancellation of the sale deed of agriculture land executed by any person without there being any title over the property. In other words, the suit regarding the cancellation of the sale deed even in respect of an agriculture land could be exclusively tried by the civil Court. 19. In other words, the suit regarding the cancellation of the sale deed even in respect of an agriculture land could be exclusively tried by the civil Court. 19. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that in the instant case, the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit essentially for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the petitioner/defendant on the ground that she is not holding any share in the disputed land. Of course, while praying for the cancellation of the sale deed and injunction against the petitioner/defendant not to interfere with the petitioner's possession over the disputed land, the plaintiff has also claimed partition of the land by meets and bounds impleading the co- sharers as party to the suit the relief which could have been claimed by the petitioner by a filing a suit before the Revenue Court even independent of the relief for cancellation of the sale deed claimed as above. But on that account, the suit filed by the plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant for cancellation of the sale deed cannot be considered to be barred by virtue of provisions of Section 207 of the Act. In considered opinion of this Court, the plaint as framed discloses the cause of action against the petitioner/defendant in respect of the cancellation of sale deed and for the injunction as prayed for an further, the relief for cancellation of the sale deed sought in the suit being the main relief, it has to be necessarily tried by the civil Court and cannot be treated to be exclusively triable by the Revenue Court, as claimed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant. 20. For the aforementioned reasons, in considered opinion of this Court, the Court below has committed no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. 21. In the result, the revision petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Revision Dismissed. *******