Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Jesa Ram @ Jai Singh vs Gordhan Ram (2026:Rj-Jd:12453) on 16 March, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:12453]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 219/2026
Jesa Ram @ Jai Singh S/o Shri Babuji, Aged About 44 Years,
(Adopted) Resident Of Morsim, Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore
----Appellant
Versus
1. Gordhan Ram S/o Shri Prema Ram Vishnoi, Resident Of
Hapu Ki Dhani, Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore.
2. Vishnu Prakash S/o Shri Gordhan Ram Vishnoi, Resident
Of Hapu Ki Dhani, Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore
3. Omkar Singh S/o Shri Himmat Singh, Resident Of
Morsim,tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Sub-Registrar, Bagoda,
Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Narendra Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Divaker Sharma
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
16/03/2026
1. The present regular first appeal has been filed against order
dated 11.02.2026 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhinmal,
District Jalore (hereinafter referred as ‘the Trial Court’) in Civil
Original Suit No.04/2022 whereby application under Order 7 Rule
11, CPC as filed on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 3 stood allowed.
As a consequence, the suit for cancellation of sale deed as filed by
the plaintiff, stood dismissed.
2. Vide order dated 11.02.2026, the learned Trial Court
proceeded on to hold that the suit in question for cancellation of
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 02:11:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12453] (2 of 5) [CFA-219/2026]
sale deed was not maintainable before a Civil Court without the
plaintiff having got a declaration in his favour by a Revenue Court.
3. The Court observed that the plaintiff was not a recorded
‘Khatedar’ of the land in question and hence, he was under an
obligation to get his rights in the agricultural land in question
declared by a Competent Court and then only he could have filed
the suit for cancellation of sale deed.
4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the suit in question
was for cancellation of sale deed on the ground of fraud. It was
the specific case of the plaintiff that the alleged Power of Attorney
on the strength of which defendant No.1 sold out the property in
question to two purchasers, was a forged one.
5. Counsel submits that defendant No.1 Gordhan Ram was in
fact the lawyer of the plaintiff and he misused his authority and
fraudulently got the power of attorney prepared in his favour and
proceeded on to execute two sale deeds in favour of one Laxman
Singh and his own son, Vishnu Prakash.
6. Counsel submits that it is the settled position of law that
when a sale deed is prayed to be cancelled on the ground of fraud,
it is only the Civil Court which has the jurisdiction to entertain the
same.
7. In support of his submission, counsel relied upon a Co-
ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Hasti Cement Pvt.
Ltd., Jodhpur & Anr. vs. Sandeep Charan & Ors.; 2018 (2)
DNJ (Raj.) 421.
8. Counsel submits that subsequent to passing of the order
impugned, despite the present appeal been pending before this
Court and the respondent having entered into caveat, the property
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 02:11:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12453] (3 of 5) [CFA-219/2026]
in question was further sold out by Vishnu Prakash vide sale deed
dated 13.02.2026 in favour of Smt. Ashok Kanwar and Smt.
Shrawan Kanwar. An application for impleadment of the said
subsequent purchasers has also been filed.
9. However, at this stage, counsel does not press the said
application. The same is hence, dismissed as not pressed.
10. Needless to observe that the appellant shall be at liberty to
take appropriate action qua the subsequent purchasers.
11. Per contra Counsel for the respondents, while relying upon
the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Raj Narain Sarin vs. Laxmi
Devi; (2002) 10 SCC 501 and the judgment of a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Jagan Singh vs. Chotey
Lal; 1973 RLW 674 submitted that the suit in question was
clearly barred by limitation and further the plaintiff failed to
disclose any cause of action. Therefore, the learned Trial Court
rightly allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.
12. Heard the counsels. Perused the Record.
13. So far as the ground raised by counsel for the respondents to
the effect that the suit was barred by limitation and further that
the plaintiff did not disclose any cause of action is concerned,
evidently, the same were not the grounds raised by the
defendants in application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC.
14. The only ground raised in the application was that the Civil
Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Therefore, the judgments as relied upon by counsel for the
respondents are of no avail, those being on points of law which
are not even in issue in the present matter.
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 02:11:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12453] (4 of 5) [CFA-219/2026]
15. Before proceeding on to adjudicate the issue whether the
suit in question was maintainable before a Civil Court or not, this
Court is constrained at this stage itself to observe that the learned
Trial Court erroneously recorded findings in the order impugned on
basis of the defence as raised by the defendants and the
documents as relied upon by them. The same definitely could not
have been done by the learned Trial Court while deciding an
application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC. It is the basic principle
of law that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11,
CPC, the Court is required to consider only the avements made in
the plaint and the defence as raised by the defendants or the
documents as relied upon by the defendants cannot be taken into
consideration at that stage. By all means, the said documents or
the pleas raised by the defendants cannot be a ground to reject
the plaint. It is the basic principle of law which all the Civil Courts
are expected to be aware of. The learned Trial Court clearly
exceeded in its jurisdiction in recording the findings on basis of the
documents relied upon by the defendants. It is crystal clear that
the learned Trial Court has just ignored the basic principle of law
and proceeded on to decide the application under Order VII Rule
11, CPC as if it was deciding the suit itself. The same is not in
terms of the excepted norms and is in clear excess of jurisdiction.
16. Coming on to the issue involved, it is an admitted fact that
the suit for cancellation of sale deed was preferred by the plaintiff
alleging fraud by defendant Nos.1 to 3.
17. As held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Hasti
Cement Pvt. Ltd. (supra), in those matters wherein the
document is a voidable one and the cancellation of sale is prayed
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 02:11:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12453] (5 of 5) [CFA-219/2026]
for, relief of cancellation of such voidable document can only be
granted by a Civil Court irrespective of the fact that the document
pertains to an agricultural land. Therein, the suit would not be
barred under Section 207 of the Tenancy Act, 1955.
18. Applying the above ratio to the present matter, admittedly
the document prayed to be cancelled herein, is a voidable one
alleging fraud and hence, it is only the Civil Court which would
have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the same. Order impugned
dated 11.02.2026 being contrary to the settled position of law
deserves to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. The present
first appeal stands allowed.
19. All the parties are directed to remain present in person or
through their counsel before the learned Trial Court on
15.04.2026. The learned Trial Court shall not be required to issue
any fresh notices to the defendants and shall be under an
obligation to proceed further with the suit proceedings in
accordance with law.
20. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
45-KashishS/-
(Uploaded on 23/03/2026 at 02:11:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 23/03/2026 at 08:32:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
