Judgment:
I.S. Israni, J.
1. This is Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(a), CPC against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Baran dated 10-11-1975 in civil suit No. 10/75, by which it was held that the suit is triable by the revenue court and the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff appellant for presenting the same in proper court.
2. The plantiff appellant filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed in the court of Additional District Judge, Baran regarding the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 279, measuring 10 Bighas and IS Biswas, which belonged to him and was in his possession. It was further asserted that the defendant-respondent No. 3 Samiran had no right to sale the disputed land in favour of defendant-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by executing a sale deed in their favour on 22-4-1974, which was got registered on 24-4-1974. It was prayed that a decree for cancellation of the above mentioned sale deed be passed in favour of the appellant. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondents thai suit was with regard to agricultural land, it was triable ay the revenue court. After hearing arguments of both sides, learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 10-11-1975 held the suit is not triable by the civil court and the plaint should be returned to the appellant for presentation in proper revenue court.
3. It may be mentioned that before respondent No. 3 executed sale deed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 & 2 on 22-4-1974 she had sold out this land to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 1300/- on 6-12-1961 even though according to the appellant he had been in possession of the land since about 4-5 years before the above sale deed, This sate deed was executed on a stamp paper of Rs. 39/- and it appears that it was no: got registered. The appellant therefore, filed a suit in the court a Assistant Collector, Baran for declaring him to be Khatedar tenant of the above land. It has been asserted by the appellant that the above suit was decreed in his favour on an admission made by Mst. Samiran in the said court. Subsequently, she again sold the same land for consideration of Rs. 8000/- to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as mentioned above.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant Shri J.K. Singhi has contended that only relief claimed in the plaint was cancellation of sale deed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, this suit was exclusively triable by a civil court as this relief could not have been granted by a revenue court. He has, therefore, urged that the lower court has seriously etred in holding that even though the relief claimed in the suit is coughed in the manner that it looks like making only a prayer for cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of respondends Nos. I & 2 but the relief, if awarded, would actually amount to grant of declaration that the plaintiff is a Khatedar tenant of the suit land and, therefore, the 3rd defendant had no right to sale the said land in dispute.
5. Shri S.P. Tyagi, learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand has supported the impugned judgment and contended that it has been rightly held that that the suit was not triable by a civil court and it has been properly returned to the plaintiff for presentation to a revenue court of competent jurisdiction.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parlies ann gone through the record of the case. The trial court has relied upon the case of Chandanmal v. Dawa 1954 R.L.W. 184 in which this Court has held that while deciding such matters the court must look to the substance of the plaint and not merely its outlook. In the case of Ashata v. Narain 1963 R.L.W. 323 it has been laid down that such questions should be decided on the allegations made in the plaint taken in their essence and it should be seen what is the true nature of the suit and the object as disclosed by the allegations contained in the plaint. In the case of Shankerlat v. Dhulilal 1963 RLW 313 it has been laid down that it should not be lightly inferred that the jurisdiction of a civil court is barred, unless such on inferedce could be raised by express provisions of law or by necessary implication. In the case of Mohantal v. Ratna AIR 1971 Raj. 164, it was held by this Court that where the plaintiff had claimed a relief of cancellation of a document on the ground that the plaintiff has by fraud made to admit in a document executed by him that he was only a sharer in 1/3rd of the agricultural land, which was in dispute, while in feet he was sharer of 1-1/2 it was clearly a case where real controversy was the desire of the plaintiff to seek declaration that he was khatedar of half share in the land. It was, therefore held that such a suit was triable exclusively by the revenue court and not by the civil court.
7. I am in respectful agreement with the principles laid down in the above cases, but these cases referred to above are not of much help to the respondents, as each case has to be decided on the facts of its own In the present case the only relief claimed is cancellation of subsequent sale deed dated 22-4-1974 executed in favour of respondent? No. 1 & 2 No declaration has been prayed regarding khatedari rights of the plaintiff. It may be further noted that certified copy of the plaint filed by the appellant against Mst Samiran & others in the court as Assistant Collector, Baran is on record. in which it has been asserted that Mst. Samiran had sold this land to the appellant for consideration. Therefore, the appellant is khatedar tenant of this land which was in his possession. A certified copy of the reply filed by Mst. Samiran has also been placed on record of trial court, in which she has admitted all assertions made by the appellant. A suit was also filed by Abdul Saqoor and Gafoor Ahmed sons of Allanoor against Amirkhan claiming possession of the land in dispute in which their application for stay was rejected by the Deputy Collector, Baran holding that the possession of the disputed lend was with appellant Amir Mohammed and appeal against this order was filed before the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was also ejected. A revision petition against the order of Revenue Appellate Authority was filed before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer, which was also rejected on 17-3-73, This clearly shows that all disputes regarding tenancy or possession of the disputed land have been dealt with by appropriate revenue courts, lbs present case was filed, in which the only prayer made was for cancellation of sale deed dt. 22-4-74 executed by defendant No. 3 Mst. Seroiran in favour of defendant-respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
8. It may also be pointed out that the relief of cancellation of sale deed cannot be granted by any revenue court. My attention has been drawn to a decision of Division Bench in the case of Gureharan and Ors. v. Mst. Gurdayal Kaur and Ors. in which a suit was instituted by Shyam Kaur and others for cancellation of decree dated March 7,1963 passed in Civil Suit No. 7/61 by the Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh on the ground that it was collusive and fraudulent and that Smt. Shyam Kaur cot being a party to suit No. 7/61 was not bound by the decree. It was also prayed in the plaint that declaration may also be made with regard to the share of the plaintiff and Smt. Sucbivar Kaur defendants and after partition, possession of their shares may also be delivered to them. In this case, it was held that the suit instituted by the plaintiffs deals with the composite matter and the suit was cognizable by a civil court and not by revenue court as other reliefs court not be referred to the revenue court. The law laid down in this case is applicable with full force to the facts of this case also a this is a case, in which even a composite question is not involved and the only relief claimed is that of cancellation of sale deed dt. 22-4-1974 executed by respondent No. 3 in favour of respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
9. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Additional District Judge, has ened in holding that the suit was triable by a revenue court.
10. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The order of learned Additional District Judge, Baian dated 10-11-1975 is set-aside and the Additional District Judge, Baran is directed to proceed with the suit and decide the same in accordance with law on priority basis as the suit has become quite old.
Appeal allowed with cost.