Civil Court Can Adjudicate Disputes Regarding Cancellation Of Voidable Sale Deed: Rajasthan High Court

The High Court was considering a Revision Petition filed under Section 115 CPC, by the petitioner-defendant assailing the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application of the petitioner-defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

The Single Bench of Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma observed, “Upon a comprehensive examination of the precedents cited hereinabove and a meticulous appraisal of the legal position, it may be conclusively articulated that the civil court is vested with the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate disputes pertaining to the cancellation of a sale deed that is voidable in nature. Thus, this court is of considered opinion that learned Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application of the petitioner-defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.”

Advocate Vikram Sharma represented the Petitioner while Advocate Avin Chhangani represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The first respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit before the Senior Civil Judge, Rajsamand, for cancellation of a sale deed as null and void and sought a permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant. It was alleged in the plaint that the agricultural land was recorded in the name of the second respondent in the revenue records. The first respondent further alleged that the second respondent was not the sole owner of the said land, as the land was ancestral and she had acquired the right of equal share by birth in ancestral agricultural land as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act.

The second respondent sold the said agricultural land in favor of the petitioner-defendant, and when this fact came to her knowledge, she preferred a suit before the Trial Court against the petitioner-defendant and other respondents (defendants). The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC with the submissions that as the subject matter of the said deed, of which cancellation was being sought, was an agricultural land, thus the suit was barred under Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The trial court, by its impugned order, rejected the application of the defendant. Being dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner defendant moved the revision petition.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the trial court, vide the impugned order, rejected the application of the defendant solely on the premise that the relief sought by the plaintiff fell under the jurisdiction of the civil court, as the jurisdiction to declare any document illegal and void is only and only with the civil court. It was also noted that as per the averments made in the plaint, the instrument was a voidable document which was sought to be declared as null and void.

The Bench referred to the judgment in Hemant Godara & Anr. Vs. Banwarilal & Ors. (2020) wherein it was observed that, in case the allegations made in the plaint make out a case of the transfer being voidable, only the civil courts would have jurisdiction, irrespective of the fact that the subject-matter of the transfer is an agricultural land.

“In view thereof, as apparently the issue as raised in the plaint pertains to the sale deed being voidable, the civil court had jurisdiction to try the said suit and the bar created by Section 207 of the Act of 1955, had no application”, the Bench said.

Thus, finding that the Court below had not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application of the petitioner-defendant under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Bench dismissed the revision petition.

Cause Title: Sohan Singh v. Rajkidevi (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:33456)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Vikram Sharma

Respondent: Advocates Avin Chhangani, Avinash Bhati

Click here to read/download Order