Civil Court must stay suit challenging gift deed pending determination of Khatedari rights by Revenue Court

The dispute involves a property of 3.16 hectares originally held by Rameshwar, who gifted it to his great-grandchildren (Respondents 1-3) via a gift deed.

Rameshwar’s sons (Arjun and Jinku) and grandson (Dalchand) challenged the deed in a civil suit, claiming 1/4th share each as ancestral property.

Rameshwar filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint, alleging the sons were wayward and had already received their shares.

He further contended that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction as *khatedari* (tenancy) rights must be determined by a Revenue Court under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

The Trial Court rejected the plaint, and the High Court affirmed this decision on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, despite a parallel suit for declaration of tenancy (Suit No. 01/2013) already pending before the Revenue Court.

Whether a Civil Court must reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC solely because a question of *khatedari* rights arises under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

Whether the proper procedure in a civil dispute involving tenancy questions is to refer the specific issue to the Revenue Court rather than dismissing the suit entirely.

The court primarily applied the jurisdictional provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

If a question of tenancy arises in a civil dispute, the Civil Court is required to frame a specific issue and refer it to the Revenue Court for determination rather than rejecting the plaint.

A civil suit challenging a gift deed (a civil matter) can be stayed or kept in abeyance pending the outcome of a related revenue dispute.

The Supreme Court observed that both the Trial Court and the High Court erred by rejecting the plaint on the sole ground of jurisdiction without noticing that a revenue suit regarding the same property was already pending.

Under the Tenancy Act, the existence of a dispute over *khatedari* rights does not automatically oust the Civil Court’s ability to hear a challenge to a gift deed; rather, it necessitates a reference of the specific tenancy issue to the Revenue Court.

Since a suit (No. 01/2013) was already pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikar, the Court found it unnecessary to make a fresh reference.

The proper course of action was to restore the civil suit and keep it in abeyance to avoid conflicting decisions and ensure that the civil challenge to the validity of the gift deed remains viable after the tenancy rights are settled by the competent Revenue Court.

The Court held that the rejection of the plaint was "highly improper".

It ordered the restoration of Civil Suit No. 29/2016 before the Additional District Judge-03, Sikar, directing that it be kept in abeyance until the disposal of Suit No. 01/2013 by the Revenue Court.

The Sub-Divisional Officer was directed to decide the tenancy issue and transmit the final order to the Civil Court to resume the trial on the validity of the gift deed.

No opinion was expressed on the merits of the *khatedari* rights or the gift deed.