Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII, r.11 – Registration Act, 1908 – ss.17, 49, 23 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.54 – Appellant-company (owner of the subject property) filed suit for declaratory reliefs alleging that despite the revocation of the agreement to sell and the power of attorney authorising Respondent No.1 to sell the subject property, Respondent No.1 executed the impugned sale deeds in respect of the subject property – Respondents filed application u/Or.VII,r.11, dismissed by Trial Court – High Court allowed the application and rejected the plaint in its entirety – Interference with: Held: A plaint cannot be rejected in its entirety merely because one of the prayers or reliefs sought is legally untenable, so long as other reliefs are maintainable and based on independent causes of action – Selective severance of reliefs is impermissible where different causes of action are independently pleaded and supported by distinct facts – High Court’s wholesale rejection of the plaint without appreciating that the reliefs claimed flowed from multiple and distinct causes of action was an improper application of Or.VII, r.11 – On facts, serious triable issues arise which must be adjudicated by a competent civil court – Impugned order set aside, order of the trial court restored. [Paras 9.5, 9.6, 14] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII, r.11 – Rejection of plaint – Law with respect to, stated. [Para 8] Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 – s.207 – When not applicable – Plea of the respondents that u/s.207, suits relating to khatedari rights and recovery of possession based on tenancy or mortgage issues fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue courts and as the appellant themselves claimed to be khatedari tenants seeking restoration of such rights upon cancellation of the sale deeds hence, the suit lied outside the jurisdiction of the civil court:
Held: Issues relating to title of immovable property fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of civil courts and not revenue authorities – Revenue entries are administrative in nature and intended only for fiscal purposes – Issues raised in the plaint pertain to ownership, validity of sale deeds, and declaration of title, which are civil in nature and, therefore, triable exclusively by a civil court – In view of this, the applicability of s.207 which bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters relating to khatedari rights and recovery of possession based on tenancy does not arise in the present case – However, by rejecting the plaint and reversing the trial Court’s well-reasoned order, the High Court assumed jurisdiction not vested in it at this preliminary stage committing a jurisdictional error. [Para 10]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.