The Limit of Civil Jurisdiction in land disputes

Land is one of the most valuable and litigated assets in India. Disputes over ownership, possession, tenancy, and title often reach the courts. While the Civil Courts are generally vested with jurisdiction to try all civil matters, this jurisdiction is not absolute. There are well-defined statutory limits on when a Civil Court can and cannot intervene in land-related disputes

Introduction

Civil courts have jurisdiction over land disputes unless a specific law or statute explicitly or implicitly bars their jurisdiction. This means that if a case involves a civil dispute over property rights, contracts, or other civil matters related to land, a civil court can generally hear it. However, if a specialized tribunal or forum is established by law to handle specific land-related matters, the civil court’s jurisdiction may be limited or excluded. 

Overlap of Civil Jurisdiction with Other Forums

Civil Courts in India, under Section 9 CPC, have wide powers to try all disputes of a civil nature. At the same time, many special statutes (like Tenancy Acts, Land Reforms Acts, Consolidation Acts, Land Acquisition laws) set up special forums and bar Civil Courts from entertaining matters falling within their purview.

This often leads to a situation of jurisdictional overlap, where both a Civil Court and a Special Forum may appear competent. The courts have developed principles to resolve this overlap.

Lack Of Jurisdiction Demarcation

At times, the legislature fails to demarcate between civil and other jurisdictions, particularly in case where mixed questions of judicial administrative relief are involved, resulting in jurisdictional challenges between civil and other forum with similar jurisdiction

Formulation of special laws

Generally, the concern regarding formulation of special laws are based on lack of specific attention to the distinct nature of disputes and subject matter, which require establishment of a specialised forums dedicated to adjudicate issues exclusively falling within their domain, thereby ensuring subjected matter expertise and procedural efficiency, such as the Debt Recovery tribunal under The Recovery of Debts and bankruptcy Act 1993 illustrates a specialised forum, thereby matters exclusively triable by the Debt Recovery Tribunal fall outside the purview of civil courts.

What happened in Vinod Infra Developers Vs Mahaveer Lunia, 2025

Background

In this case, Vinod Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant) filed a civil suit asking the court to declare that it was the rightful owner of certain agricultural land.

The dispute arose because the land had been sold through a sale deed executed by Mahaveer Lunia (Respondent No. 1) in his own favour and also in favour of other respondents. This sale deed was based on an unregistered Power of Attorney and an agreement to sell, which became the most controversial points in the case.

Meanwhile, the respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, asking the court to reject the plaint (the suit) on several grounds:

• that the suit did not show a valid cause of action,
• that no mortgage existed,
• that the land was incorrectly valued, and
• that insufficient court fees had been paid.

The Additional District Judge, Jodhpur, dismissed this application outright (at the very beginning) and allowed the case to proceed.

However, when the matter went to the High Court in a revision petition, the High Court disagreed with the trial court. It set aside the order of the Additional District Judge and ruled in favour of the respondents.

Findings of the Apex Court

The Apex Court in the civil appeal examined the interplay between the Jurisdiction of revenue authorities to determine khatedari Rights under section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The Respondent’s grievance was primarily directed at the procedural irregularities committed by the appellant in initiating civil proceedings. The contention was confined to the procedural laps in instituting suit without first obtaining khatedari rights.

The Supreme Court set aside the objections about those procedural issues and allowed the civil appeal. The Court also referred to Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, which deal with registration of documents related to property rights. It clearly stated that an unregistered Power of Attorney and an unregistered agreement to sell cannot be approved by the court as valid evidence, because such documents must be registered in order to legally transfer ownership of property.

Additionally, the Supreme court also relied upon Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882, which stipulates that a mere contract of sale, even if accompanied by possession, does not, by itself, create any interest over such property. The court also referred to Section 23 of the registration Act, 1908, which mandates that documents requiring compulsory registration must be registered within 4 months from the date of execution. Lastly the Apex Court, while examining Order VII Rule XI of the CPC,1908, Observed that if even a single triable issue is disclosed in the plaint, it cannot be rejected summarily.

Key Findings

Applicability of Oder 7 Rule 1

The Supreme Court made it clear that a plaint (civil suit) can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC only in limited situations. For example, if:

• the plaint does not show any cause of action,
• the suit is barred by law,
• the property has been undervalued, or
• proper court fees have not been paid.

The Court also said that if there is even a genuine issue that needs to be tried, the plaint should not be rejected. Instead, the case should be allowed to continue and be decided through a proper trial.

Uphold the Jurisdiction of the Civil Court

The Court reaffirmed that civil courts have the power to discuss cases related to the transfer of title or the grant of declaratory relief over Immovable property. However, the Court overlooked the procedural requirement that before asking for any derogatory relief, one is required to obtained tenancy rights the Rajasthan Tenancy Rights Act, 1955.

required to obtained tenancy rights the Rajasthan Tenancy Rights Act, 1955.

Affording a Fair opportunity to cure the defect

While looking into the matter of insufficient court fees, the Court relied on its earlier decision in Tajendra Singh Gambhir & Another Vs Gurpreet Singh & Others (2014). It was cleared that the suit cannot be dismissed solely because because of insufficient court fees. The law gives a Chance to the Plantiff to rectify such procedural mistake.

Inadmissibility of unregistered instruments

The Apex Court Reiterated the well settled law regarding the mandatory registration of documents under the Registration Act, 1908, to effectuate a sale transaction, holding that an unregistered power of attorney and agreement to sell is inadmissible in evidence to effectuate such a transaction

Application of Section 92 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The Apex Court relied upon the pleadings of the appellant concerning the transaction under the agreement to sell was a mortgage arrangement, falling within the exception to section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (section 95 Bhartiya Shakshya Adhiniyam,2023), thereby it can be testified through oral and extrinsic evidence to elucidate the true nature of the transaction. Section 92 states that the terms of a contract, grant, or other disposition of property have been put into writing and signed, then no oral (spoken) evidence can be used in court to contradict, change, add to, or subtract from those written terms. As instant case the appellant argued that consideration for sale was never truly existed the said documents were not intended to transfer the title, rather the same were in substances of mortgage

i.e. Mutation of names in revenue records)

Mutation entries are not sufficient to confer the title: The court also clarified that merely the mutation of names is not sufficient to confer any title as it is an administrative, consequences. Consequently, the burden is now on the claimants to substantiate their title over immovable property through proper legal documents.

The lack of clarity on the interplay between the grant of declaratory relief and the declaration of khatedari rights leaves litigants in a state of procedural uncertainty. This judicial silence warrants legislative clarification to harmonise the function of the civil and revenue courts.

(Case Reference: Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., AIR 1969 SC 78 – landmark case on jurisdiction of civil courts.)

Invalidation of the Sale Deed

The Supreme Court invalidated the execution of sale deed, as the execution was carried out after the revocation of such power of attorney; such a transaction is deemed non-est in law. Thus, the sale deed could not transfer any valid title or ownership to the purchasers, because a document executed without proper legal authority carries no sanctity in law. So, Under the Registration Act

What makes this case stand out

This judgment is distinguishable from earlier findings, as particularly in this case, the Apex Court failed to classify the procedural lapse concerning the failure of declaration of khatedari rights by the Appellant before obtaining declaratory reliefs from the civil court, as the appellant’s own pleadings reflect their status as khatedari tenants.

Critical analysis and some unaddressed contentions

The judgment raises a mix of factual and legal questions. But there are still some common issues that have not been answered, such as:

Not Recorded the Findings of the High Court

It seems that the court missed the observation of the High Court regarding the party’s status as a tenant. This is essential when applying Section207.  Although the suit was filed without first obtaining the khatedari rights. But since the findings were made in isolation, it should have been looked at alongside the observation of the High Court.

Didn’t examine the veracity of the of the unilateral revocation

 The court did not question the validity of the appellant’s move to revoke the power of attorney. This revocation was done without providing any notice to the respondent and also without providing them a chance to be heard. Since the document was formulated to make the decision favour of the respondent, this was an utter violation of the principles of natural justice.

Balance between Statutory Bar and Legal Rights

Moreover, the Supreme court failed to balance the express Statutory Bar under Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 with the enforcement of legal rights, as the Supreme Court failed to appreciate the jurisdiction of revenue court in matter concerning khatedari rights Vis-à-vis enlarged the scope of civil courts jurisdiction, litigants are unable to approach civil courts easily without obtaining khatedari rights, or without following any procedural requirement (i.e. Mutation of names in revenue records)

Judicial Principles on Bar of Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court of India has consistently held that exclusion of civil jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred. Some guiding principles are:

1. Presumption in Favour of Jurisdiction: Unless the statute clearly bars civil jurisdiction, Civil Courts can try the matter.
2. Express vs. Implied Bar: An express bar is when the law explicitly states so. An implied bar arises when the statute provides a complete machinery for adjudication.
3. Test of Adequacy: If the special statute gives sufficient remedies, civil courts will not intervene.
4. Fraud or Ultra Vires Acts: Even when jurisdiction is barred, Civil Courts may still step in where orders are obtained by fraud, or authorities act beyond their powers.

Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) provides that Civil Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature except those of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.

Thus, unless expressly barred by statute, any dispute concerning land, ownership, or possession can be brought before a Civil Court. However, the legislature has, in various enactments, ousted civil jurisdiction in specific types of land matters. Section 9 of the C.P.C. provides that the civil courts have the jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature unless their jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred by a specific statute. This section ensures that individuals have the right to approach civil courts for the enforcement of their civil rights. However, if a law explicitly or implicitly restricts the civil court’s jurisdiction in certain matters (e.g. tribunals or special forums), then the civil court cannot entertain such cases.

 Key Points:

1. Grants civil courts broad jurisdiction over civil matters.
2. ii. Excludes cases where jurisdiction is barred by law.
3. iii. Ensures protection and enforcement of civil rights.

Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, says that civil courts have the authority to hear all suits of a civil nature unless a specific law says otherwise. In simple terms, if someone’s civil rights like property, contracts, or personal rights are affected, they can approach a civil court, unless there’s a law that clearly says a civil court can’t deal with that kind of issue. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (C.P.C) lays down the procedural framework for civil litigation in India. Section 9 of the C.P.C is a foundational provision that grants jurisdiction to civil courts to adjudicate civil disputes. It embodies the principle Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium – Where there is a right, there is a remedy.

• Dhulabhai v. State of M.P., AIR 1969 SC 78 — Landmark judgment laying down principles on exclusion of jurisdiction. The Court held that exclusion of jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred and Civil Courts retain jurisdiction unless the statute provides a complete mechanism for adjudication.

Guiding Principles from Dhulabhai Case (1969)

The Supreme Court laid down tests for exclusion of jurisdiction:

1. If a statute gives finality to orders of special tribunals, civil jurisdiction is excluded if the statute provides adequate remedies.
2. If the statute is silent on exclusion, jurisdiction can be inferred if the scheme shows that special remedies are complete.
3. Where statutory authority acts in bad faith, or order is ultra vires, Civil Court jurisdiction survives.

Conclusion

Civil Courts are the default forum for land disputes involving title, possession, or ownership. However, their jurisdiction is curtailed in areas where special statutes create exclusive forums — such as tenancy, consolidation, revenue, and land ceiling matters.

For advocates and litigants, the first step is to carefully study the governing state law and identify the appropriate forum. Filing a suit in a Civil Court despite a statutory bar not only wastes time but also risks dismissal at the threshold.

Thus, while Civil Courts remain the backbone of land litigation, their jurisdiction is neither unlimited nor unfettered. Navigating these boundaries is essential for effective advocacy in land disputes. Legislative intervention is necessary to expel such ambiguity by limiting the jurisdiction of civil courts to preserve the functional relevancy.