BHURA LAL Vs. THIKANA BADI SADRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil original suit which has been transferred to this Court from the High Court of the former State of Rajasthan which in its turn had received it from the High Court of the former State of Udaipur.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with this case on the merits, we propose to say a few words as regards its history which is as unfortunate as it is revealing. The plaintiffs instituted this suit against the defendant Thikana Badi Sadri, for recovery of possession of certain agricultural lands and wells, in the Mahendraj Sabha of the former State of Udaipur in 1917 A. D. The Mahendraj Sabha decreed the suit in the plaintiffs' favour in 1929 and allowed possession of the suit property to be restored to the plaintiffs. According to the practice, however, which was in force then, the Mahendraj Sabha submitted the case with its recommendation for the approval of His Highness the Maharana of Udaipur. On 31. 10. 1933. His Highness ordered that full opportunity should be given to the parties for production of their evidence, and thereafter the case be decided de nove and appointed a special bench consisting of three members of the Mahendraj Sabha for the purpose. The case remained pending there for a period of eight years, when, on an application by the plaintiffs, His Highness the Maharana directed by his order dated 10. 5. 1941 that the case be transferred to the High Court of Mewar which had come into existence by that time. The case, however, made no headway and dragged on in that Court and then in the High Court of the former State of old Rajasthan, until 1949 when it eventually came to be transferred to this Court. It became necessary to serve all the parties again and the case was not ripe for hearing until 5th November, 1951. When it came before us on 6th April, 1953, we found that it was a huge mass of unassorted papers, and, we therefore, thought it fit to order that a paper-book should be prepared to enable us to have some idea of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence that had been led by them. On that very day however, an objection was raised on behalf of the defendant that this Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit by virtue of the provisions of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act (No. 1 of 1951), 1951. We, therefore, directed that learned counsel for the defendant should put up a proper application, if he wanted to press the point and in the event of such an application being filed, the preparation of the paper-book be taken up after that application was decided. Accordingly on 27th April, 1953, Mr. Mordia, learned counsel for the defendant, submitted an application questioning the jurisdiction of this court to entertain and try the present suit. When this application was argued we naturally wanted to see the plaint which had been filed by the plaintiffs as early as Svt. 1974, and we asked learned counsel for the parties to let us have a look at it; but curiously enough, learned counsel were unable to lay their hands on the plaint on the record of the case. It appears, from what we have been told, that the plaint has been missing for some time and from before the case was transferred to this Court. In the circumstances, we had no alternative but to direct learned counsel for the parties to produce an agreed copy of the plaint from their briefs, if possible, and place it on this record. This has been done, vide the plaintiffs' application dated 17th September, 1953. Learned counsel for the defendant has admitted the correctness of the body of the plaint produced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs. We accordingly directed that this should be placed on the record, and treated hereafter as the plaint in the case.

(3.) WE, therefore, hold that the present suit is one which is exclusively triable under serial No. 12, Group B of the First Schedule of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, and that this court has no jurisdiction to try it. WE are further of the opinion that this suit is triable by an Assistance Collector under sec. 12 (1) (ii) of the said Act, and we therefore, direct that this case be transferred to the court of the Assistant Collector at Nimbahera in whose jurisdiction the suit property is situate. In the circumstances of this case, we direct that costs incurred hitherto and in this court shall be costs in the cause. .