PARASRAM Vs. BHAGCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dungarpur, under sec. 40 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, (No. 1) of 1951, and has arisen in the following circumstances.

(2.) PARASRAM and Roopchand plaintiffs are the mortgagees of certain fields from Bhagchand and Hukka defendants who are said to have made the mortgage on27-l 1-1948. It appears that the mortgagors made over possession of one of the mortgaged fields to the mortgagees but declined to deliver possession of the other fields as their sugar-cane crop was standing thereon and required to be harvested. The plaintiffs demanded possession of the field after the defendants had collected the crop, and the letter declined to do so. Consequently the plaintiffs instituted the suit, out of which this reference has arisen, for recovery of possession of the suit filed from the defendants in the court of the Munsiff, Dungarpur, on 11th August, 1949, on the allegations herein before mentioned. The suit was pending in the court of the Munsiff when the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, came into force on the 31st January, 1951. An objection was raised before the Munsiff that the suit was of a revenue nature according to the said Act as a result of which he transferred it to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dungarpur, under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 6 of the Act. The Sub-provisional Officer seems to have held a different view regarding the nature of the case and transferred it back to the Munsiff. It may be mentioned in passing that the procedure adopted by the Sub-Divisional Officer was not quite correct and he should have made a reference with the permission of the Collector under sec. 40 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act to this Court. Be that as it may, the Munsiff again returned the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer asking the letter to make a reference to the High Court. The Sub-Divisional Officer instead of making a reference thought fit to entertain the case and he proceeded to decide it and eventually dismissed it. The plaintiffs thereupon went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur, who was apparently of the opinion that the case was of a civil nature and remanded it back to the Sub-Divisional Officer with a direct that he should make a reference to this Court. Hence this reference.