Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 501 (RAJ)

Rampal v. Divisional Officer, Sujangarh

2016-04-07

SANGEET LODHA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sangeet Lodha, J. This petition is directed against order dated 6.9.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ratangarh, in Civil Suit No. 16/2003 rejecting an application preferred by the petitioner under Section 10. C.P.C., seeking stay of the proceedings in the suit. 2. The relevant facts are that the plaintiff, second respondent herein, preferred a suit against the petitioner and third and fourth respondent herein, before the Revenue Court, claiming declaration of khatedari rights, permanent injunction and correction of revenue record in respect of the land measuring 10 bigha 5 biswa, comprising Khasra No. 24, situated in Village-Rohi Khariya. 3. During the pendency of the revenue suit, the petitioner preferred a civil suit before the Additional District Judge, Ratangarh, seeking declaration of khatedari rights over the land in question as also for declaring the sale deed dated 18.6.2001, executed by third and fourth respondent herein, in favour of the petitioner. That apart, the permanent injunction was also sought in terms that the defendants may not interfere with cultivatory possession of the plaintiff, the second respondent, over the disputed land. 4. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 10 C.P.C., taking the stand that the matter in issue in the civil suit filed by the petitioner is directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit filed before the Revenue Court and therefore, the proceedings in the civil suit filed by the petitioner deserves to be stayed. 5. The application stands rejected by the Court below observing that in the civil suit filed the petitioner has prayed for declaring the sale deed dated 18.6.2001 as null and void, the relief which cannot be granted by the Revenue Court and therefore, the provisions of Section 10 C.P.C., are not attracted in the matter. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that admittedly in the revenue suit filed earlier, the petitioner has prayed for declaration of his khatedari rights over the land in question and has also sought injunction in the same terms as prayed for in the civil suit. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that admittedly in the revenue suit filed earlier, the petitioner has prayed for declaration of his khatedari rights over the land in question and has also sought injunction in the same terms as prayed for in the civil suit. Learned Counsel would submit that the declaration of sale deed as null and void is only a consequential relief, which depends upon the respondent-plaintiff proving his right, title and interest in the suit land and thus, the relief of cancellation of sale deed being ancillary relief dependent on the order to be passed in favour of the plaintiff on declaration of his right, title and interest in the suit property so as to avoid the conflicting decision on the question of right, title and interest over the disputed land, the proceedings in the civil suit deserves to be stayed invoking provisions of Section 10 C.P.C. In support of the contention, learned Counsel has relied upon decision of this Court in the matter of Aameen & Ors. v. District Judge, Churu & Ors., 2009(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1402. 7. On the other hand, Counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the controversy involved in the revenue suit and the civil suit preferred by the respondent plaintiff cannot be said to be directly and substantially the same and therefore, the question of staying the proceedings in the civil suit does not arise, Learned Counsel submitted that one of the essential requirement of applicability of Section 10 C.P.C. and stay of proceedings is that the Court dealing with the previously instituted suit, ought to be competent to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit and therefore, since the relief of declaration of sale deed as null and void, cannot be granted by the Civil Court, the order impugned passed by the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 9. Indisputably, the question with regard to declaration of sale deed as null and void as prayed for by the plaintiff in the civil suit is dependent on determination of question as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his khatedari right over the land in question. Suffice is to say that the relief with regard to declaration of sale deed as null and void is only ancillary and consequential relief, which can be granted by the Revenue Court if it passes a decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that he is entitled to be declared khatedar tenant of the land in question. 10. In Aameen's case (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court relying upon earlier decision in the matter of Moti Lal & Ors. v. Jagdish Prasad & Ors., 2000 WLC (UC) 530, held that where the right to relief in subsequently instituted suit essentially depends on the success of the plaintiffs in claim of their khatedari right which are to be adjudicated in the revenue suit, the Civil Court would be justified in not proceeding with the civil suit until the final conclusion of the revenue suit. 11. Further, in the matter of Rukhmani v. Bhola & Ors., (2012) 4 RLW (Raj.) 3050, where the plaint was returned by the Civil Court for filing the same before the Revenue Court, this Court after due consideration of the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, held : "22......... if the Revenue Court passes a decree for declaration in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that she is khatedar-tenant or co-tenant of 1/2 or any other share in the land in dispute, that Court is equally competent to grant a consequential relief to the effect that the sale deed in question is void and ineffective to the extent of share of the plaintiff and it is not essential for the plaintiff to file a separate suit thereafter in a Civil Court for getting the sale deed cancelled. I am also of the view that if the Revenue Court declares the plaintiff-co-tenant of the land in dispute, it is not necessary for her to get the sale deed cancelled as that would be automatically void and ineffective to the extent of share of the plaintiff." (Emphasis supplied) 12. I am also of the view that if the Revenue Court declares the plaintiff-co-tenant of the land in dispute, it is not necessary for her to get the sale deed cancelled as that would be automatically void and ineffective to the extent of share of the plaintiff." (Emphasis supplied) 12. Similarly, in Modu Ram v. Board of Revenue, 2015(3) WLN 284, this Court upon a consideration of various decisions of this Court held that if the suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession of treating the deed as wholly void or a nullity, then, a prayer for cancellation of deed was unnecessary and was not required to be made by the plaintiff, who could ignore the void document. 13. Thus, in view of the settled position of law discussed as above, in the consideration opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the Court below, rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside and the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 10 C.P.C. deserves to be allowed as prayed for. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 6.9.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ratangarh in Civil Suit No. 16/2003, is set aside. The application preferred by the petitioner under Section 10 C.P.C. is allowed. The proceedings in Civil Suit No. 16/2003 pending before the Court of Additional District Judge, Ratangarh, shall remain stayed pending disposal of the Revenue Suit No. 57/2001 preferred by the respondent-plaintiff pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sujangarh. No order as to costs.