JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 15.05.2014 passed by the learned 8th Additional District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No. 22/2014 (213/2014) whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11 and Section 10 CPC has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts for disposal of the present revision petition are that the respondent No.1 filed a revenue suit being Suit No. 133/2012 in the court of SDO, Jaipur-I alleging that she was having khatedari rights over the land situated in Khasra Nos. 1839 and 1843 and the same was wrongly mutated in the name of the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 of that suit. It was also alleged that the above said defendants executed a registered sale-deed of part of the land in question in favour of the defendants Nos. 4 and 5 of the suit on the basis of the relinquishment deed. Thus, a decree of declaration about her khatedari rights was sought and also sought for declaring the sale-deed and relinquishment deed as illegal and permanent injunction was also sought. During the pendancy of the said suit, the respondent No. 1-plaintiff filed a civil suit being Suit No. 213/2014 seeking cancellation of the sale-deed and relinquishment deed and also the permanent injunction with regard to the same agricultural land. During the pendency of this Civil suit, the petitioners moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 10 CPC and the defendants Nos. 1 to 7 also filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 is CPC. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the applications vide the impugned order. It is against this order, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned trial court has not considered the fact that the respondent No.1 - plaintiff has already filed a revenue suit seeking and subsequently the civil suit was filed seeking same relief. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned trial court has not considered the fact that the respondent No.1 - plaintiff has already filed a revenue suit seeking and subsequently the civil suit was filed seeking same relief. It was also submitted by him that the main prayer in both the suits filed by the respondent No.1 plaintiff was for declaration of her khatedari rights over the land in dispute as also to declare the sale-deed and relinquishment deed as illegal, null and void and the judgment of revenue court would operate as res judicata in the civil suit. It was further submitted that unless the khatedari rights are declared, the said deeds could not have been canceled and the khatedari rights can only be declared by the revenue court and the ancillary relief of declaring the said deeds as illegal, null and void can also be granted by the revenue court. The learned trial court has not considered all these aspects of the matter and has wrongly dismissed the application filed by the petitioners. It was, therefore, prayed that the revision petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed and the application filed by them under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 10 CPC may be allowed and the plaint filed by the respondent No.1 - plaintiff before the civil court may be rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgments delivered in the cases of Shri Ram & Anr. v. 1st Additional District Judge & Ors. [ AIR 2001 SC 1250 ] , Mohanlal v. Ratna [ AIR 1971 Raj. 164 ] , Badrilal & Anr. v. Moda & Ors. [ AIR 1979 Raj. 142 ] , Jaswant & ors. v. Board Revenue & Ors. [1984 WLN 609] and Rukmani v. Bhola & Ors. [2014(4) RLW 3050 (Raj.)] . 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order and submitted that there is no bar on the civil court to try the suit of cancellation of sale-deed of agricultural land by any person without there being any title over the property. He has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the case of Shayam Kumar & Ors. v. Budhsingh & Ors. [1997 WLN 51] , Bhopal Singh & Ors. He has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the case of Shayam Kumar & Ors. v. Budhsingh & Ors. [1997 WLN 51] , Bhopal Singh & Ors. v. Bhagwat Singh [1979 WLN 24] and Pratapi (Smt.) v. Jhamku & Ors. [2014(1) RRT 534] . 6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the available record. 7. The question arises for determination in this revision petition is that i whether the present suit is triable by the civil court or it is triable by the revenue court. Generally, the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suits for vindication of existing civil rights with respect to the property unless its jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred and the exclusion of the jurisdiction cannot be lightly inferred. 8. From the perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the revenue suit No. 133/2012 was filed in the revenue court for declaring the plaintiff as tenant/land owner in respect of ½ share of land at Khasras Nos. 1838, 1839 and 1843 measuring 5 bighas 5 biswas and that the defendants be restrained from creating any interruption in plaintiff's possession in suit property and third party interest and do not effect change of land use from agricultural to non-agricultural. 9. In the Civil Suit No. 22/2014 filed before the 8th Additional District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, the prayer of the plaintiff was that the is relinquishment deed and sale-deed be declared as illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff and the same be canceled and that the defendants be restrained from carving out residential plots and not to interrupt in possession of plaintiff and further not to create any third party interest or obtain loan on the suit property from anyone. 10. Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act provides that all suits and application of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by the revenue court and no court, other than the revenue court, shall take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of such suit or application. The Third Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act contains the list of suits, applications and appeals provided under the Act, to be tried by the respective revenue court. The Third Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Tenancy Act contains the list of suits, applications and appeals provided under the Act, to be tried by the respective revenue court. Section 88 of the Act deals with the suit for declaration of the rights as a co-tenant or his share in the joint tenancy, a tenant of khudkasht and a sub-tenant in an agricultural land. Section 89 deals with the suit for declaration as to class of tenancy etc. and Section 90 of the Act deals with the suits for declaration of land as khudkasht while Section 91 deals with suits for declaration of any other right. Section 92A of the Act deals with the suits for injunction. 11. For determining whether the civil court has the jurisdiction or the revenue court has the jurisdiction to try the suit, the frame of the suit, the allegations contained in the plaint, the substance and the main object of the suit, the pith and substance of the plaint and not merely its form, are required to be looked into. Any infringement of a legal right with respect to the property is always actionable in a civil court unless its jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred. 12. In the present suit before the civil court, the main relief is for cancellation of relinquishment deed and sale-deed. The cloud created by the defendants over the rights of the plaintiff cannot be removed and a potential danger against her rights will subsist till the sale-deed is canceled. Though the plaintiff was not party to the sale-deed but she is seeking relief to establish her rights in the suit property, hence, it is a case of the nature where the action is really based on the need for cancellation of sale-deed. The plaintiff though is a stranger to the instrument of the sale-deed, but she seeks so to adjudge the sale-deed void and to get it canceled. The frame of the suit, the averments made in the plaint, the relief prayed for and the object for which the suit has been filed, make it clear that it was mainly a suit for cancellation of the sale-deed and all the other relief is ancillary to that relief and as such the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred. 13. In Mohanlal v. Ratna [ AIR 1971 Raj. 13. In Mohanlal v. Ratna [ AIR 1971 Raj. 164 ] , it was held that when in a suit by a tenant to cancel a document, the pleadings show the relief which also amount to declaration of his share in the land, the suit can lie only in the revenue court. 14. In Rukmani v. Bhola & Ors. [2012(4) RLW 3050 (Raj.)] , it was held that if the revenue court declares the plaintiff-co-tenant of the land, it is not necessary for her to get the sale-deed canceled as that would automatically void and ineffective to the extent of share of the plaintiff. 15. In the case in hand, the petitioners-defendants filed written statement to the suit filed before the court and while replying the contents of para No.8 of the plaint, alleged as under:- " -------izfroknh la[;k 1 rk 3 }kjk vkil esa fu"ikfnr fd;s x;s nLrkostksa dks fujLr fd;s tkus ds fy;s flfoy U;k;ky; esa okn is'k djuk gksxk rFkk flfoy U;k;ky; }kjk mDr lHkh nLrkost gd R;kx ds i'pkr~ gh oknh;k vius gd o vf/kdkj ds laca/k esa dk;Zokgh dj ldsxhA " 16. In Shyam Kumar & Ors. v. Budhsingh & Ors. [ 1977 WLN 51 ] , a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that if the relief mainly sought is cancellation of sale-deed, the revenue court is not competent to grant such relief.Same view was reiterated in the matter of Bhopal Singh & Ors. v. Bhagwat Singh [ 1978 WLN 24 ] . 17. In the matter of Pratapi (Smt.) v. Jhamku & Ors. [2014(1) RRT 534] , a Coordinate Bench of this Court held as under:- "In the backdrop of the position of law settled by various decision discussed as above, there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that when in a suit ancillary relief to the main relief sought is sought for declaration of a sale-deed of an agricultural 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, on no manner, bars the jurisdiction of civil court in entertaining the suit of cancellation of the sale deed of agricultural land executed by any person without there being any title over the property. But then, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court, on no manner, bars the jurisdiction of civil court in entertaining the suit of cancellation of the sale deed of agricultural 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 agricultural land could be exclusively tried by the civil court." 18. In the case in hand, the main prayer of the civil suit is cancellation of sale-deed and relinquishment-deed. Further, the petitioners-defendants themselves raised a plea in the written statement that the respondent No.1-plaintiff must have filed the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed and relinquishment-deed.Thus, in view of the law discussed above, the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be barred to try the suit in which the main relief is for cancellation of sale-deed and relinquishment-deed. The learned trial court has not committed any illegality or irregularity while dismissing the application under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 10 CPC. 19. In view of the above, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned so order and the revision petition is, therefore, dismissed as devoid of any merit.Revision dismissed. *******