PYARELALversusSHUBHENDRA PILANIA (MINOR) THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN (FATHER) SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR PILANIA & ORS.

                         [2019] 1 S.C.R. 717                               717


                             PYARELAL                                      A
                                   v.
         SHUBHENDRA PILANIA (MINOR) THROUGH
       NATURAL GUARDIAN (FATHER) SHRI PRADEEP
                     KUMAR PILANIA & ORS.                                  B
                 (Civil Appeal Nos. 1269-70 of 2019)
                       JANUARY 29, 2019
                      [U. U. LALIT AND
       DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]                                  C
      Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
       s. 9 – Jurisdiction of civil court – Whether barred – For
trying suit in respect of agricultural land for relief to declare the
gift deed void and to restrain respondent Nos. 1 to 5 from alienating
the property – While the suit of plaintiff before Revenue Court for        D
declaration of ‘Khatedari’ rights in respect of suit property was
pending – Held: Claim of the plaintiff to ‘Khatedari’ rights was
pending adjudication, by the Revenue Court which had exclusive
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such claim in view of s. 207 r/w s.
256, s. 88 and Third Schedule of Tenancy Act – The plaintiff had
no right to seek relief before the civil court without first getting his   E
‘Khatedari’ rights decreed by the Revenue Court – Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955 – ss. 207, 256, 88 and Third Schedule.
       Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaring gift deed in
respect of suit property (an agricultural land) as void and for
restraining the defendants (respondent Nos. 1 to 5) from alienating        F
the suit property. Appellant had also filed suit before Revenue
Court for declaration of his ‘Khatedari’ rights. Respondent Nos.
1 to 3 filed an application u/Or. VII r. 11 r/w s. 151 CPC contending
that civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Trial court
dismissed the application. High Court allowed the Revision                 G
holding that the suit was barred by the provisions of Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955. Hence the present appeal.
      Dismissing the appeals, the Court
     HELD: 1. Section 207 read with Section 256 of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil courts in respect of        H
                               717
718            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A     suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule
      to the Tenancy Act. Sl. No. 5 in the Third Schedule read with
      Section 207 of the Tenancy Act stipulates that a suit for the
      declaration of a right provided in Section 88 would lie before a
      revenue court. In a suit where the relief sought for is the
      declaration of the right stipulated in Section 88, Sections 207 and
B
      256 read with the Third Schedule bar the jurisdiction of civil courts
      and vest jurisdiction exclusively with a revenue court. [Paras 14 ,
      15][726-A-B; 727-A-B]
             2. The civil court may decree the relief prayed (declaration
      of gift deed in respect of suit property void) only if it is first
C     determined that the appellant is entitled to khatedari rights in
      the suit property. Under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, the
      jurisdiction to declare khatedari rights vests exclusively with the
      revenue courts. Only after such determination may the civil court
      proceed to decree the relief as prayed. The explanation to Section
D     207 clarifies that if the cause of action in respect of which relief is
      sought can be granted only by the revenue court, then it is
      immaterial that the relief asked from the civil court is greater
      than, or in addition to or not identical with the relief which the
      revenue court would have granted. In view of this matter, the
      civil court may not grant relief until the khatedari rights of the
E     appellant have been decreed by a revenue court. [Para 18][728-
      E-G]
             3. Where the khatedari rights are yet to be decreed, a
      claimant must first approach the revenue courts. The relief to
      declare the gift deed void and to restrain respondents Nos. 1 to
F     5 from interfering with or alienating the property vesting in a
      civil court may be sought for in a suit by a claimant in whom
      khatedari rights have been decreed by a revenue court. [Para
      19][728-G-H; 729-A]
             4. A recorded khatedar stands on a different footing
G     compared to a claimant seeking a decree of their khatedari rights.
      A claimant seeking a decree of khatedari rights is barred from
      filing a suit in the civil court prior to their khatedari right being
      decreed by a revenue court when the relief sought for by the
      civil court includes a determination of khatedari rights. [Para
H     21][730-C-D]
    PYARELAL v. SHUBHENDRA PILANIA (MINOR) THR.                               719
           NATURAL GUARDIAN (FATHER)

       5. In the present case, the High Court has proceeded on                A
the basis that the suit seeking a declaration of the gift deed relating
to disputed agricultural land as void and restraining Respondent
Nos. 1 to 5 from transfer or sale of the agricultural land before
the civil court is squarely covered by the bar to the jurisdiction
of the civil court under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The
                                                                              B
claim of the appellant to khatedari rights is pending adjudication
by a revenue court which has the exclusive jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon such a claim. The appellant has no right to seek
relief before the civil court without first getting his khatedari rights
decreed by the revenue court. [Para 22][730-D-F]
      Bank of Baroda v. Moti Bhai (1985) 1 SCC 475 : [1985]                   C
      2 SCR 784; Shri Ram v. A D J (2001) 3 SCC 24 :
      [2001] 1 SCR 984 – relied on.
                          Case Law Reference
      [1985] 2 SCR 784                     relied on        Para 14
                                                                              D
      [2001] 1 SCR 984                     relied on        Para 20
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1269-
1270 of 2019.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2014 and 02.03.2015
of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in      E
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 117 of 2013 and S.B. Civil Review Petition
No. 1 of 2015 in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 117 of 2013 respectively.
     Annam D. N. Rao, Annam Venkatesh, Sudipto Sircar, Rahul
Mishra, Advs. for the Appellant.
      Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Shaurya Singh           F
Rathore, Damodar Solanki, Vaidruti Mishra, Suresh Pandey, Advs. for
the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Leave
granted.                                                                      G
       2. The appeals in the present case arise from two orders dated 13
November 2014 and 2 March 2015 of the Rajasthan High Court in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. By an order dated 13 November
2014, the learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the revision
petition filed by the respondents. The challenge was to an order dated        H
720                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A     26 August 2013 of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sikar
      rejecting the objection to the jurisdiction of the civil court to try the suit
      filed by the appellant. The appellant filed a petition for review before the
      High Court. The learned single Judge dismissed the petition on 2 March
      2015.
B              3. The family tree of the appellant is depicted below:




C




D




E
            The Sub-Registrar and Tehsildar are respondent Nos. 4 and 5
      respectively.
             4. The appellant alleged that on the death of Mangalram and
      Rukma Devi, the agricultural land in question devolved upon respondent
      No. 3 and his sister Kushali Devi (mother of the Plaintiff) in equal shares.
F
      Kushali Devi died intestate and her share devolved upon her children –
      the appellant and respondent Nos. 7 to 10 in equal measure. The appellant
      and respondent Nos. 7 to 10 claim to be in possession of their share in
      the suit property. The appellant alleged that respondent Nos. 2 and 3
      colluded with the Sarpanch of the village and got the name of respondent
G     No. 3 recorded as the owner of the land belonging to the appellant and
      respondent Nos. 7 to 10. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 registered
      a gift deed dated 10 February 2011 in favour of respondent No. 1.
            5. On 13 March 2012, the appellant filed a civil suit1 against the
      respondents praying that the gift deed dated 10 February 2011 be declared
      1
H         62/2012
    PYARELAL v. SHUBHENDRA PILANIA (MINOR) THR. NATURAL                            721
    GUARDIAN (FATHER) [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

void to the extent of the share claimed by the appellant and that respondent       A
Nos. 1 to 5 be restrained from alienating the suit property. Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 19082contending that the appellant,
who is not a recorded khatedar of the suit land, had filed a suit before
the revenue court for the declaration of his khatedari right and the suit
                                                                                   B
preferred by the appellant before the Trial court was liable to be dismissed.
In reply, the appellant admitted that a suit had been filed before the
revenue court for the declaration of his khatedari right but contended
that the civil court had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.
       6. On 26 August, 2013, the Trial court dismissed the application,
taking the view that any conclusion on the question of jurisdiction can            C
only be drawn after framing preliminary issues and recording evidence
of the parties. The objections were dismissed by Trial court with the
following observations:
        “6. So far as present application is concerned, in the said application,
        the first ground taken by the defendants is that the plaintiff and         D
        the defendant Nos.7 to 10 are not recorded kashtkar of the
        disputed land and they have already filed suit in the revenue court
        for getting their khatedari right declared. Therefore, civil courts
        have no jurisdiction to try the present suit.
        7. In this context, the defendants cited Rukmani v Bhola and others        E
        (SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 553/1993) dated 20.12.2011, while
        plaintiff cited DNJ 2013(1) Rajasthan 358. In the citation of the
        defendants, though the Hon’ble High Court has set this principle
        that if the relief of declaring any document ineffective and void is
        sought for and in pith and substance, the suit is related with             F
        khatedari rights, then revenue court would have jurisdiction to
        try the suit because until and unless revenue court has not declared
        khatedari rights, the civil court cannot declare the document void.
        Though in the citation cited by the defendants as stated above,
        the suit must be related for the declaration of basic khatedari
        rights, then only the jurisdiction is vested unto the revenue court,       G
        but if we carefully peruse the said citation then in that case the
        trial court has framed issues on the basis of pleadings of the plaint
        and written statement of the parties and thereafter recording
        evidence of the parties on the preliminary issue, the suit has been
2
    “The Code”                                                                     H
722               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A              returned back for filing in the concerned court in view of Order
               VII Rule 11 CPC. In the present case, issues are yet to be framed.
               The plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that his mother has one half
               share in the suit land hence on this point any conclusion can be
               drawn only after framing a preliminary issue and recording evidence
               of the parties.”
B
             7. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 challenged the order of the Trial court
      in revision under Section 115 of the Code. The Rajasthan High Court
      allowed the revision by its judgement dated 13 November 2014. Relying
      on the averments in the plaint, the High Court held that the suit was
      barred by the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.3The High
C     Court observed thus:
               “Apparently and looking to the prayer of the plaintiff in the Trial
               court, it can easily be said that the suit was triable only by the
               revenue court under the provisions of Section 88 and Section 207
               of the Act of 1955 and hence it can further be said that the suit
D              from the averment in the plaint appears to be barred under the
               provisions of the Act of 1955 and the suit should have been rejected
               on that count alone under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11(d)
               of Code of Civil Procedure and hence the order dated 26.8.2013
               passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.2, Sikar in Civil Suit
E              No.62/2012 B.T. No.20/12 deserves to be quashed and set aside
               which is hereby quashed and set aside.”
               The review petition preferred by appellant was dismissed.
            8. Assailing the decision of the High Court, learned counsel for
      the appellant urged the following submissions:
F
               (i) The relief claimed in the suit is not covered under Section 207
                   and the Third Schedule of the Tenancy Act and a civil court
                   has jurisdiction to decide the existing dispute; and
               (ii) A suit before a civil court is maintainable even though a suit
                   for declaring khatedari rights has been filed before the revenue
G
                   court.
             9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has
      urged the following submissions:

      3
          Tenancy Act
H
 PYARELAL v. SHUBHENDRA PILANIA (MINOR) THR. NATURAL                             723
 GUARDIAN (FATHER) [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      i) The jurisdiction of a civil court is barred in respect of suits and     A
          applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule of
          the Tenancy Act;
      ii) Acivil court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit or proceeding
          with respect to any matter arising under the Tenancy Act or
          the Rules made under it, provided that a remedy by way of a            B
          suit, application or appeal or otherwise is provided in the Act;
          and
      iii) The issue of jurisdiction travels to the root of or to the inherent
           lack of jurisdiction.
      10. These submissions fall for our consideration.                          C

      11. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides thus:
      “9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred - The Courts
      shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction
      to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their          D
      cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
      Explanation I - A suit in which the right to property or to an office
      is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such
      right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious
      rites or ceremonies.
                                                                                 E
      Explanation ll - For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial
      whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in
      Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a
      particular place.”
      Section 9 empowers civil courts to try all suits of a civil nature         F
unless expressly or impliedly barred by any statute.
      12. Section 256 of the Tenancy Act provides thus:
      “256. Bar to jurisdiction of civil courts — (i) Save as otherwise
      provided specifically by or under this Act, no suit or proceeding
      shall lie in any civil court with respect to any matter arising under      G
      this Act or the rules made thereunder, for which a remedy by way
      of suit, application, appeal or otherwise is provided therein.
      (2) Save as aforesaid no order passed by the State Government
      or by any revenue court or officer in exercise of the powers
                                                                                 H
724               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A              conferred by this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be liable
               to be questioned in any civil court.”
            Section 256 bars the jurisdiction of civil courts, save as otherwise
      provided under the Tenancy Act. Civil courts are expressly barred from
      trying a suit or proceeding with respect to matters arising under the
B     Tenancy Act or rules made under it for which a remedy by way of a suit,
      application, appeal or otherwise is provided in the Tenancy Act.
               13. Section 207 of the Tenancy Act provides thus:
               “207. Suits and applications cognizable by revenue court
               only—
C
               (1) All suits and applications 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
D              a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained
               by means of any such suitor 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
E
               have granted.”
              Section 207 of the Tenancy Act states that no court other than a
      revenue court shall take cognizance of suits and applications of the nature
      specified in the Third Schedule. Such suits can be heard and determined
      by a revenue court which has exclusive jurisdiction. The explanation
F
      clarifies that if the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may
      be granted by the revenue court, then it is immaterial that a relief sought
      from the civil court is greater than, in addition to or not identical to the
      relief sought from the revenue court. Where a suit is of a nature specified
      in any of the provisions of the Third Schedule, the bar under Section 256
G     is attracted and the revenue courts have exclusive jurisdiction to try the
      suit.
            14. In Bank of Baroda v Moti Bhai4, a two judge Bench of this
      Court dealt with the question of jurisdiction under Sections 207 and 256
      4
          (1985) 1 SCC 475
H
 PYARELAL v. SHUBHENDRA PILANIA (MINOR) THR. NATURAL                             725
 GUARDIAN (FATHER) [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

of the Tenancy Act. A bank had sanctioned a demand loan facility to the          A
respondent for which the respondent executed a promissory note and a
simple mortgage in favour of the bank. On his failure to repay the loan,
the Bank instituted a suit in the civil court for recovery. The respondent
raised a preliminary objection that the suit was essentially one for enforcing
the mortgage and that the revenue court had the exclusive jurisdiction to
                                                                                 B
entertain the suit by reason of the provisions contained in the Tenancy
Act. The Trial court dismissed the objection. Allowing the revision filed
by the respondent, the High Court held that that the mortgage deed in
respect of agricultural lands formed an essential part of the cause of
action. Upon an analysis of Sections 207 and 256 of the Tenancy Act, a
two judge Bench of this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court           C
with the following reasons:
       “5. A combined reading of these two sections would show
       that the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred only in respect
       of suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third
       Schedule to the Act and in respect of suits or applications               D
       based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief
       could be obtained by means of a suit or application of the
       nature specified in the Third Schedule. The civil court has
       no jurisdiction to entertain a suit or proceeding with respect
       to any matter arising under the Act or the Rules made
       thereunder, provided that a remedy by way of a suit,                      E
       application or appeal or otherwise is provided in the Act.
       A loan given by a Bank to an agriculturist, which is in the nature
       of a commercial transaction, is outside the contemplation of the
       Act and can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be in respect
       of any matter arising under the Act…The business of the Bank,             F
       in so far as lending transactions are concerned, is not to lend
       moneys on mortgages but the business is to lend moneys.
       8. On the question of jurisdiction, one must always have
       regard to the substance of the matter and not to the form of
       the suit. If the matter is approached from that point of view, it         G
       would be clear that, primarily and basically, the suit filed by the
       Bank is one for recovering the amount which is due to it from the
       respondents on the basis of the promissory note executed by
       respondent 1 and the guarantee given by respondents 2 and 3.”
                                                    (Emphasis supplied)          H
726             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A            Section 207 read with Section 256 of the Tenancy Act bars the
      jurisdiction of the civil courts in respect of suits and applications of the
      nature specified in the Third Schedule to the Act. The question before
      us is whether the relief claimed by the appellant can be granted exclusively
      by a revenue court under the provisions of the Tenancy Act.
B           15. Section 88 of the Tenancy Act provides thus:
            “88. Suits for declaration of right:-
            (1) Any person claiming to be a tenant or a co-tenant may sue for
            a declaration that he is a tenant or for a declaration of his share in
            such joint tenancy.
C
            (2) A tenant of Khudkasht may sue for a declaration that he is
            such a tenant.
            (3) A sub-tenant may sue the person from whom he holds for
            declaration that he is a sub-tenant.
D           (4) A landholder other than a State Government may sue a person
            claiming to be a tenant or co-tenant of a holding or a tenant of
            Khudkasht or a sub-tenant for a declaration of the right of such
            person.”
            Sl. No. 5 of the Third Schedule provides thus:
E                          “THE THIRD SCHEDULE
                Suits, Applications and Appeals under the Act
                        (See Sections 207, 214, 215 & 217)


F




G




                                                                            “
H
 PYARELAL v. SHUBHENDRA PILANIA (MINOR) THR. NATURAL                               727
 GUARDIAN (FATHER) [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      Sl. No. 5 in the Third Schedule read with Section 207 of the                 A
Tenancy Act stipulates that a suit for the declaration of a right provided
in Section 88 would lie before a revenue court. In a suit where the relief
sought for is the declaration of the right stipulated in Section 88, Sections
207 and 256 read with the Third Schedule bar the jurisdiction of civil
courts and vest jurisdiction exclusively with a revenue court.
                                                                                   B
       16. It is admitted that the suit property is agricultural property and
the appellant has filed a suit before the revenue court for the declaration
of his khatedari rights.
      17. Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code provides thus:
          “11. Rejection of plaint. – The plaint shall be rejected in the          C
          following cases:-
          (a)    …
          (b)    …
          (c)    …                                                                 D
          (d)Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to
             be barred by any law;”
        A plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the
averments made in the plaint to be barred by any law. To determine
                                                                                   E
whether the relief sought by the appellant before the Trial court is a
relief that may be granted by a revenue court and is consequently barred
under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, the prayer in the plaint before
the Trial court may be examined. The prayer reads thus:
      “a) That the suit may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and
      against defendants No. 1 to 3 and the gift deed executed and                 F
      registered on 10.2.2011 at Book No. 1 Volume No. 737, Page No.
      53, Sr. No. 2011001797 in the Office of Sub Registrar Sikar may
      kindly be declared as exhibitory, illegal, ab-initio, void and ineffective
      and may be cancelled to the extent of ½ share of the defendant
      and plaintiff Nos. 7 to 10 in the agricultural land comprised Khasra         G
      No. 395 Rakba 0.24 Hectare, Khasra No 395 Rakba 0.24 Hectare,
      Khasra No. 410 Rakba0.87 Hectare situated in Village Ajeetpura,
      Tehsil and District Sikar and for putting a note to this effect on the
      gift deed; a copy of the judgment and decree may kindly be
      forwarded to the Sub Registrar, Sikar;
                                                                                   H
728             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A           (b) That defendant Nos. 1 to 5 may kindly be restrained not to
            transfer, mortgage, damage, sale or transfer the ½ share of the
            agricultural land which is in possession and cultivation of the plaintiff
            and defendant Nos. 7 to 10 out of the land of Khasra No. 395
            Rakba 0.24 Hectare and Khasra No. 410 Rakba 0.87 Hectare
            situated in village Ajeetpura, Tehsil and District Sikar described in
B
            the said gift deed and not to disturb their cultivatory possession
            and not to raise any construction thereon and not to mortgage,
            gift, transfer or create any charge and not to transfer the same
            and not to register any mortgage deed and not to change the
            revenue records on the basis of the gift deed in question and further
C           not to do such acts through his agents, servants and representatives
            etc. in any manner;
            (c) That cost of the suit may be granted in favour of the plaintiff
            and against the defendant Nos. 2 and 3;
            (d) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
D           proper be also passed in favour of the plaintiff.”
              18. The appellant has prayed that the gift deed dated 10 February,
      2011 be declared void to the extent of the share claimed by the appellant
      and that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 be restrained from alienating the share
      of the appellant. The civil court may decree the relief prayed only if it is
E     first determined that the appellant is entitled to khatedari rights in the
      suit property. Under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, the jurisdiction
      to declare khatedari rights vests exclusively with the revenue courts.
      Only after such determination may the civil court proceed to decree the
      relief as prayed. The explanation to Section 207 clarifies that if the cause
F     of action in respect of which relief is sought can be granted only by the
      revenue court, then it is immaterial that the relief asked from the civil
      court is greater than, or in addition to or not identical with the relief
      which the revenue court would have granted. In view of this matter, the
      civil court may not grant relief until the khatedari rights of the appellant
      have been decreed by a revenue court.
G
             19. A claimant whose khatedari rights have been decreed by a
      revenue court is however on a different footing from a claimant whose
      khatedari rights are pending adjudication by a revenue court. Where
      the khatedari rights are yet to be decreed, a claimant must first approach
      the revenue courts. The relief to declare the gift deed void and to restrain
H
    PYARELAL v. SHUBHENDRA PILANIA (MINOR) THR. NATURAL                          729
    GUARDIAN (FATHER) [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

respondents Nos. 1 to 5 from interfering with or alienating the property         A
vesting in a civil court may be sought for in a suit by a claimant in whom
khatedari rights have been decreed by a revenue court.
       20. In Shri Ram v ADJ5, a suit was filed before the civil court for
the cancellation of a sale deed of an agricultural land on the grounds of
fraud and impersonation. The defendant contended that the suit is barred         B
by Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950which reads thus:
         “331. Cognizance of suits etc. under this Act. – (1) Except as
         provided by or under this Act, no Court other than a Court
         mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding             C
         anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908),
         take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned
         in Column 3 thereof or of a suit, application or proceedings based
         on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained
         by means of any such suit or application;
                                                                                 D
         …
         Explanation.- If the cause of action is one in respect of which
         relief may be granted by the revenue Court, it is immaterial that
         the relief asked for from the civil Court may not be incidental to
         that which the revenue Court would have granted.”                       E
        The question before this court was whether a recorded tenure-
holder having prima facie title in his favour and in possession was required
to file a suit in the revenue court, or where the civil court had jurisdiction
to entertain and decide the suit seeking relief of cancellation of a void
document. Upholding the jurisdiction of civil court to try the suit, a two       F
judge Bench of this Court differentiated between a recorded tenure holder,
and an unrecorded tenure holder with the following observations:
         “7. …we are of the opinion that where a recorded tenure holder
         having a prima facie title and in possession files suit in the civil
         court for cancellation of sale deed having obtained on the ground
                                                                                 G
         of fraud or impersonation cannot be directed to file a suit for
         declaration in the revenue court - reason being that in such a
         case, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not
         under cloud. He does not require declaration of his title to the
5
    (2001) 3 SCC 24
                                                                                 H
730             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A            land. The position would be different where a person not being a
             recorded tenure holder seeks cancellation of sale deed by filing a
             suit in the civil court on the ground of fraud or impersonation.
             There necessarily the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of
             his title and, therefore, he may be directed to approach the revenue
             court, as the sale deed being void has to be ignored for giving him
B
             relief for declaration and possession.”
             21. Though the above principles emerge in the context of the bar
      under Section 331 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
      Reforms Act, 1950, the logic of the judgment extends to the bar under
      Section 207 read with Section 256 of the of the Tenancy Act. A recorded
C     khatedar stands on a different footing compared to a claimant seeking
      a decree of their khatedari rights. A claimant seeking a decree of
      khatedari rights is barred from filing a suit in the civil court prior to their
      khatedari right being decreed by a revenue court when the relief sought
      for by the civil court includes a determination of khatedari rights.
D            22. In the present case, the High Court has proceeded on the
      basis that the suit seeking a declaration of the gift deed relating to disputed
      agricultural land situated in Sikar as void and restraining Respondent
      Nos. 1 to 5 from transfer or sale of the agricultural land before the civil
      court is squarely covered by the bar to the jurisdiction of the civil court
E     under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The claim of the appellant to
      khatedari rights is pending adjudication by a revenue court which has
      the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such a claim. The appellant
      has no right to seek relief before the civil court without first getting his
      khatedari rights decreed by the revenue court.

F            23. For the above reasons, we find that there is no merit in the
      challenge preferred by the appellant to the impugned judgment and order
      of the High Court. The appeals shall, accordingly stand dismissed. There
      shall be no order as to costs.


G     Kalpana K. Tripathy                                           Appeals dismissed.




H