ORDER : Ashok Kumar Jain, J. 1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner defendant (father of plaintiffs) aggrieved from order dated 23.08.2023 in civil suit no. 71/2022 passed by learned Civil Judge Sikrai, District Dausa whereby application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner defendant while placing reliance upon grounds of revision petition submitted that the plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for declaration of gift deed dated 10.06.2022 as null and void and also for permanent injunction against their father and same is not maintainable as the plaintiffs are not a recorded khatedar (tenant) of land in question. He further submitted that there is no khatedari right either for cultivation or recorded in any of revenue record in favour of plaintiffs. He also submitted that without seeking a declaration of right as a tenant, the plaintiffs have no right to file a civil suit against a recorded tenant to declare gift deed as null and void. He further submitted that after filing of present suit the plaintiffs have filed a revenue suit to declare their khatedari right and present suit is not maintainable. He also submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering identical circumstances in case of Pyare Lal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) through Natural Guardian (Father) & Ors. reported in 2019 (3) SCC 692 has allowed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC thereby rejecting a plaint filed by plaintiff. At last, he submitted that the trial court has committed serious error while dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as the suit is barred by law under Sections 207 and 256 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent(s) plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs have challenged the document executed by present petitioner and to challenge any document the civil court is only competent court, thus the trial court has rightly dismissed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. He also referred the plaint and submitted that the plaintiffs have not sought any declaration with regard to their khatedari right and the jurisdiction of civil court is not barred under the law. He also submitted that the revenue entries are only for fiscal purpose and on the basis of these entries a suit of plaintiff cannot be rejected. 4. He also referred the plaint and submitted that the plaintiffs have not sought any declaration with regard to their khatedari right and the jurisdiction of civil court is not barred under the law. He also submitted that the revenue entries are only for fiscal purpose and on the basis of these entries a suit of plaintiff cannot be rejected. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. The facts giving rise to file instant revision petition in brief are that respondent nos. 1 to 3 (plaintiffs) have filed a civil suit for declaration of gift deed dated 10.06.2022 (executed by defendant no.1 and present petitioner) as null and void. The plaintiffs have claimed that the suit property is ancestral property and they have birth right in the property. The petitioner (defendant no.1) has filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that civil suit is barred under Section 207 read with Section 256 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and same is liable to be rejected in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pyare Lal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (supra). 6. After dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner defendant no.1. 7. An application was dismissed by learned trial court observing that the trial court is required to peruse the plaint and documents filed along with the plaint. Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with the grounds for rejection of plaint aiming to prevent frivolous or defective suits. The provision enables the Court to reject a plaint, if certain conditions are satisfied. An application was dismissed by learned trial court observing that the trial court is required to peruse the plaint and documents filed along with the plaint. Order VII Rule 11 CPC deals with the grounds for rejection of plaint aiming to prevent frivolous or defective suits. The provision enables the Court to reject a plaint, if certain conditions are satisfied. The provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC is reproduced as under: Rejection of plaint— The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action; (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so; (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law : (d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law : (e) where it is not filed in duplicate; (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provision of rule 9: “Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite stamp-paper shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature form correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp- paper , as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff.” 8. In case of T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC (1) 467 , Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the aforesaid provision has held that the trial court must remember that if on a meaningful and not a formal reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious and meritless in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, it should exercise the power under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. If clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, it has to be nipped in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party under Order X of the Code. 9. The object of the said provision is further considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sopan Sukhdeo Sable vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137 , and in Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510 , and held that no court shall permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings in the suit in case the suit does not disclose the cause of action of bar any law or law of limitation. 10. In case of Saleem Bhai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557 that the relevant facts which need to be looked into for deciding an application thereunder are the averments in the plaint. The trial court can exercise the power at any stage of the suit i.e. before registering the plaint or after issuing summons to the defendant at any time before the conclusion of the trial. For the purposes of deciding an application under clauses (a) and (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the averments in the plaint are germane; the pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement would be wholly irrelevant at that stage. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents to discuss the intent under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by limitation, court would not permit protraction of the proceedings and it would be necessary to put an end to the shame litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted. 12. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315 opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bond to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time and space of the Courts. 12. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315 opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bond to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time and space of the Courts. The power on the Court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII, Rule 11 CPC are required to be strictly adhered to. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an application seeking rejection of a plaint clarified that while determining any application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court should restrict itself to the plaint and should not go into the detail facts as provided under the written statement or even in the application filed for rejection of plaint. While scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, the Court can read documents annexed and relied upon in the plaint. 14. Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that a plaint should be rejected if the suit is barred by any law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 INSC 458 has observed that plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by law. 15. In case of Pyare Lal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (Minor) (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the provision of Order VII Rule 11 CPC with reference to a suit related to agricultural land filed before the civil court. After considering the provision of 207 read with Section 256 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act and also Section 5 of Limitation Act, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the revenue court has exclusive jurisdiction to declare khatedari right and plaintiff has no right to seek relief from the civil court without first getting his khatedari rights declared by the revenue court. 16. While considering the provision of law, it has observed that a recorded khatedar stands on a different footing compared to claimant seeking a decree of their khatedari rights. A claimant seeking a declaration of khaterdari right is barred from filing a suit in civil court prior to their khatedari right being declared by a revenue court when relief sought from the civil court includes the determination of khatedari right. 17. A claimant seeking a declaration of khaterdari right is barred from filing a suit in civil court prior to their khatedari right being declared by a revenue court when relief sought from the civil court includes the determination of khatedari right. 17. Herein this case, a perusal of plaint indicate that land description as mentioned in Para nos. 3 to 5 situated in Rama Intka, Tehsil Sikrai Patwari Halka Chokarwada, District Dausa is in khatedari (tenancy) of defendant no.1. Admittedly, the defendant no.1 is father of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have claimed 3/5th share in the land mentioned in Para Number 3 to 5. The meaning of statement of plaintiff clearly reflect that the plaintiffs are neither recorded tenant nor claimed their exclusive possession on the land in question. 18. In case of Jitendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. 2021 SCC Online SC 802 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of a person, as mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose. If there is no dispute with respect to the title and more particularly when the mutation entry is sought to be made on the basis of any right, the party who is claiming title/ right has to approach the appropriate civil court and get his right crystalized and only thereafter necessary mutation entry can be made. In case of Balwant Singh & Anr Vs. Daulat Singh (Dead) & Ors. (1997) 7 SCC 137 Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the effect of mutation and observed that the mutation of property in revenue record neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has any presumptive value on the title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. 19. In case of Suraj Bhan & Ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner & Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 186 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that an entry in revenue record does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record of rights. The entries in the revenue record or Jamabandi is only for fiscal purpose and same cannot be treated as document of title. 20. Herein this case, the plaintiffs who are sons and daughter of defendant no.1 have filed a civil suit during life time of their father, and the mutation entries (land record) are not in the name of plaintiffs. The entries in the revenue record or Jamabandi is only for fiscal purpose and same cannot be treated as document of title. 20. Herein this case, the plaintiffs who are sons and daughter of defendant no.1 have filed a civil suit during life time of their father, and the mutation entries (land record) are not in the name of plaintiffs. After filing of present civil suit, a revenue suit has been filed by plaintiffs to declare their khatedari right on agricultural land. 21. The plaintiffs have claimed that the land mentioned in Para nos. 3 to 5 is ancestral land and after death of grandfather of plaintiffs same is mutated in the name of defendant no.1 (petitioner). The Hindu Succession Act provides for general rule of succession, in case of inheritance. Section 8 provides for distribution of property among heirs in Class -1 of Schedule whereas Section 6 describes general rule of succession in case of males. A joint reading of aforesaid provision makes it clear that so long as defendant no.1 is alive plaintiffs have no right claim any independent share in the property. 22. Herein this case, a gift deed was executed by father of plaintiffs and father is alive, who is also a recorded tenant. The plaintiffs (respondent nos. 1 to 3) are not a recorded tenant and now during pendency of civil suit, they have filed a revenue suit to declare their khatedari right. In case khatedari rights are declared in favour of plaintiffs about land in question then, the document in question itself is void upto the extent of rights of plaintiffs. There is no incident or document to establish the fact that there existed a Joint Hindu Family or HUF. The plaintiffs have not inherited right, as per record, after death of their grandfather. Earlier, the plaintiffs have not challenged the right exclusively inherited by defendant no.1 (petitioner herein) but now they have filed a revenue suit and same is admittedly before the revenue court, thus, the document in question depends upon the declaration of rights declared in subsequently filed revenue suit. 23. As per provision of hindu law, surviving son(s) and daughter(s) cannot file a civil suit to claim partition or to enforce any right in ancestral property during the life time of their father. This principle is supported by judgment in case of Uttam Vs. Saubhag Singh & Ors. 23. As per provision of hindu law, surviving son(s) and daughter(s) cannot file a civil suit to claim partition or to enforce any right in ancestral property during the life time of their father. This principle is supported by judgment in case of Uttam Vs. Saubhag Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 1169 , based on view expressed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur & Ors. Vs. Chander Sen reported in (1986) 3 SCC 567 . Herein this case, the right of plaintiff depends upon right of tenancy in the agricultural land. The defendant no.1 acquired the khatedari rights in inheritance but considering the judgments as referred hereinabove, same is not enough to presume that defendant no.1 is owner of revenue land rather he is a tenant and entry in revenue record is just an entry for fiscal purpose. 24. A perusal of plaint also indicate that the plaintiffs are not claiming any declaration about khatedari right but the land in question is an agricultural land and a specific law is in place which governs the affairs of agriculture land. Section 207 read with Section 256 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act specifically bars the suit where the dispute pertains to declaration of khatedari rights. In case of Pyarelal Vs. Shubhendra Pilania (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the suit in respect of an agricultural land without a khatedari right is not maintainable before the civil court. 25. Having considered aforesaid legal position both in terms of agricultural land and also suit by sons and daughter against surviving father, a suit is not maintainable unless khatedari rights are declared in favour of plaintiffs. Admittedly, the revenue suit has been filed after filing of present civil suit, therefore, taken note of subsequent event in light of judgment in case of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado Brother AIR 2004 SC 2093 , instant suit is not maintainable and the trial court has committed serious error while dismissing application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 26. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 23.08.2023 is hereby set aside. 27. As a result, an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC is allowed and the suit (plaint) preferred by respondent nos. 1 to 3 (plaintiffs) is hereby rejected. 26. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 23.08.2023 is hereby set aside. 27. As a result, an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC is allowed and the suit (plaint) preferred by respondent nos. 1 to 3 (plaintiffs) is hereby rejected. Needless to say that a suit filed before revenue court, based on independent rights is maintainable as per law. 28. Instant revision petition and misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.