JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. Feeling aggrieved of the order dated 12.04.2013, passed by the learned District Judge, Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’), vide which the petitioners’ suit had been returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner has invoked the power of superintendence of this Court, vested in it, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts are handful, but all of them need to be noticed. 3. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration of their inheritance rights with the following prayer ^^vr% fuosnu gS fd oknhx.k dk oknk Lohdkj fd;k tkdj oknhx.k ds i{k esa oknhx.k ds i{k esa oknhx.k dks e`rd xksek] [kqek] /kkiw] ykyk] os.kk ds ,dek= mRrjkf/kdkjh okfjl gksus dh ?kks’k.kkRed fMØh Ápfyr QjekbZ tkos A vU; dksbZ lgk;rk tks oknhx.k dks fnyk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gks fnykbZ tkos A** 4. Before the suit could be registered, the trial court vide its order dated 12.04.2013, returned the plaint, to be filed in revenue court, with the following observations ^^fof/k dk ;g lqLFkfir fl/nkar gS fd fdlh okn ds {ks=kf/kdkj dk fcanq okn ds vfHkopu ds vk/kkj ij gh r; fd;k tkuk pkfg, A gLrxr okn esa oknhx.k us okn ds VkbZVy esa ^^mRrjkf/kdkj ?kks”k.kk** vafdr fd;k gS fd rFkk vuqrks”k ds dkWye esa oknhx.k dks e`rd xksek] Hkwjk [kqek] /kkiw] ykyk] os.kk ds ,dek= mRrjkf/kdkjh okfjl gksus dh ?kks”k.kkRed fMØh ikfjr fd;s tkus dh ÁkFkZuk dh gS fd ftlds vk/kkj ij oknhx.k okn ds iSjk la 4 esa jktLo xzke /kksVh iVokj gYdk dkyknsg esa vkjkth la- 526 jdck ,d ch?kk pkj fcLok] vkjkth la- 482 jdck rhu ch?kk vkB fcLok] vkjkth la- 516 jdck l=kg fcLok] vkjkth la- 515 jdck ,d ch?kk vkB fcLok] vkjkth la- 2621@517 jdck nks ch?kk ikap fcLok] vkjkth la- 554 jdck ,d ch?kk ukS fcLok Hkwfe dk jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa ukekUrj.kdj.k jktLo foHkkx ls vius uke djok lds A oknhx.k }kjk ÁLrqr lEiw.kZ okn ds voyksdu oknhx.k dk ;g okn is’k djus dk ,d ek= mn~ns’; mDr d`f”k Hkwfe;ksa dk ukekUrj.k vius uke [kqyokuk gS A ;fn okn esa of.kZr d`f”k Hkwfe;ksa dk ukekUrj.k muds uke gks tkrk gS ;k jktLo deZpkjh@vf/kdkjh muds uke ukekUrj.k [kksy nsrs rks mUgsa ;g okn is’k dj] mRrjkf/kdkj ?kks”k.kk djokus dh vko’;drk gh ugha Fkh A bl Ádkj bl okn dks is’k djus ds ihNs oknhx.k dk ,dek= vk’k; mDr d`f”k Hkwfe;ksa ds ckjs esa vius i{k esa [kkrsnkjh vf/kdkjksa dh ?kks”k.kk djokuk gh ÁdV gksrk gS A gLrxr Ádj.k esa oknhx.k us tks vuqrks”k pkgk gS og jktLo xzke /kksVh iVokj gYdk dkyknsg esa vkjkth la- 526 jdck ,d ch?kk pkj fcLok] vkjkth la- 482 jdck rhu ch?kk vkB fcLok] vkjkth la- 516 jdck l=kg fcLok] vkjkth la- 515 jdck ,d ch?kk vkB fcLok] vkjkth la- 2621@517 jdck nks ch?kk ikap fcLok] vkjkth la- 554 jdck ,d ch?kk ukS fcLok Hkwfe dk dfFkr iwoZtksa ds mRrjkf/kdjh oknhx.k gksus ds vk/kkj ij muds i{k esa ukekUrj.k [kqyokus ds lEca/k esa gS vFkkZr oknhx.k vius i{k esa mDr vkjkft;kr ds laca/k esa dk’rdkjh vf/kdkjksa dh ?kks”k.kk pkgh gS ftlds QyLo:i jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa mDr d`f”k Hkwfe;ka muds uke vk ldsa A ** 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sandeep Saruparia contended that the learned trial court has seriously erred in returning petitioners’ plaint on the ground of jurisdiction. 6. He submitted that the petitioners had filed a suit for declaration simplicitor, without impleading anybody as defendant, as no rival claimant existed vis-a-vis the petitioners. All the plaintiffs are heirs of Class II of the deceased Goma, Bhura etc. He argued that such declaration of rights of inheritance can be made only by a competent civil court. Assailing the findings of the trial court he pointed out with surprise that the Court has returned the petitioners’ plaint, inferring that the petitioners’ intention for getting such declaration was to get Khatedari rights with respect to the agricultural rights vested in Goma, Bhura etc. who died in 1944. 7. Mr. Saruparia submitted that since the deceased Goma, Bhura, Khuma etc. died without leaving any heir of Class I, the petitioners being heirs of Class II were entitled to succeed, for which they were advised/required to file a suit for declaration by the revenue authorities, when they sought the agricultural land to be mutated in their names. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the plaint and the order impugned. Having done so, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has committed manifest error of law as well as of jurisdiction in returning the plaint, while holding that the power to grant the desired declaration rests with the revenue court. The reasons for forming such opinion are set out hereinfra :— 9. While passing the order impugned, the Court below has completely misdirected itself and instead of considering the prayer and substance of the plaint has gone ahead to consider the future use of the decree and that too on conjectures and surmises. A perusal of the prayer clause and even the pleadings depict that the plaintiffs had simply sought a declaration of their rights of inheritance or right to succeed their prepositus Goma, Bhura & Khuma et al. Though, there are averments to the effect that their predecessors were having khatedari rights in certain parcels of land and that they have died issueless, but these facts are incidental or ancillary facts so far as the suit for declaration as framed is concerned. 10. Though, there are averments to the effect that their predecessors were having khatedari rights in certain parcels of land and that they have died issueless, but these facts are incidental or ancillary facts so far as the suit for declaration as framed is concerned. 10. According to this Court, merely because the declaration as sought, would ultimately lead to or may be used for determination of their rights qua the agriculture land, it cannot be said that the suit as framed and as filed was required to be tried by a Revenue Court. 11. In the present set of facts, the learned Court below was required to look at the pleadings and prayer of the plaint in question and was not at all concerned with the ostensible use of the decree, if passed in plaintiffs’ favour. The Revenue Courts are not competent to decide heritence or statutory rights, more particularly in the present factual backdrop, when many of the predecessors from plaintiffs’ family have died intestate, purportedly leaving no heirs of Class-I. 12. In the light of various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is by- far settled that while determining the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the Court is required to consider the averments made in the plaint only. A gainful reference in this regard can be made of the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2003 (1) SCC 577. 13. A plain reading of the plaint reveals that the plaintiffs have asserted that the deceased predecessors have died leaving no heirs of Class-I, while making a passing reference that they had agricultural holdings/khatedari rights in their favour. Notwithstanding such assertions, they have requested the Court to declare them successors of the concerned deceased persons. Such right flows from Hindu Succession Act/Hindu Law or other Proprietary laws, but not from Tenancy Act: petitioners have not claimed themselves to be khatedar - tenants or joint khatedars. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs have neither claimed khatedari rights nor have they sought their share in such land, hence, there is hardly any implication or involvement of Tenancy Act, 1955. 14. Section 207 of the Tenancy Act, 1955, bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court, in the following words :— “207. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs have neither claimed khatedari rights nor have they sought their share in such land, hence, there is hardly any implication or involvement of Tenancy Act, 1955. 14. Section 207 of the Tenancy Act, 1955, bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court, in the following words :— “207. Suits and applications cognizable by revenue court only-(1) All suits and application of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court. (2) No court other than a 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 any such suit or application. Explanation- If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief might be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court is greater than, or additional to, or is not identical with, that which the revenue court could have granted.” 15. A careful reading of Section 207 and third schedule suggests that the suit in question neither falls within the domain of Section 88, 90 or 91 of the Tenancy Act, 1955 nor does in fall in any of the categories mentioned in Schedule III of the Act of 1955. 16. The declaration of right of inheritance is a determination of civil or statutory right. Merely because the declaration of such rights will entail vesting of agricultural rights, the suit cannot be relegated to be tried by Revenue Courts. Regardless of the hidden purpose or obvious end-use of the decree, the suit like the one at hands is required to be tried by the Civil Courts, because such declaration can be given by the civil courts alone. 17. In the extant facts, the plaint could not be returned under sub-Rule 10 or 11 of Rule 7 of the Code. It is reiterated that instead of being concerned with the ultimate use of the decree, the Courts should look at the prayer and desired decree. Until and unless passing of the decree itself is barred under Section 207 of the Tenancy Act, 1955, the Court should not deter from trying the suit. 18. To conclude; “The civil suit filed by the petitioners was perfectly maintainable.” 19. Until and unless passing of the decree itself is barred under Section 207 of the Tenancy Act, 1955, the Court should not deter from trying the suit. 18. To conclude; “The civil suit filed by the petitioners was perfectly maintainable.” 19. The impugned order dated 12.04.2013 passed by the court below is, thus, quashed and set aside. The suit is restored to the dockets of the trial court to be tried and decided in accordance with law. 20. Looking to the nature involved in the lis, particularly because the issue at hands is purely a question of law and the same has been wrongly determined by the learned court below, this Court has proceeded to decide the present writ petition without issuing notice to the respondent - general public; as serving of the notice would have been an exercise in futility. 21. The trial court shall however issue requisite notice to “general public”, while deciding the suit. The suit be decided in accordance with law, on its own merits, not being influenced by any observation made in the order instant. Petition stands allowed.