(1.) THIS is an appeal by Nanu and others against the order of the District Judge of Ganganagar, returning the plaint which they had filed in that court for a declaration that the property in suit did not belong to Mst. Goran defendant in the suit, and that she could not claim possession and partition of that property.
(2.) THE case put forward by the plaintiffs was that Mst. Goran was a widow of one Nathu who was a brother of the plaintiffs Nanu, Sultan and Birbal. Nathu died during the life-time of his father Hira. On the death of Hira, Mst. Goran applied in the revenue court for the mutation of her name in the official records about one-fourth of the property of Hira, and got her name mutated. THE entire property was then in the possession of the plaintiffs, and therefore Mst. Goran filed a suit for partition of her one-fourth share in the revenue court. In that suit, it appears that the present plaintiff took an objection as to the proprietary title of Mst. Goran and prayed that an issue be farmed as required by sec. 36 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, and be remitted to the civil court for decision. It appears that the Sub-Divisional Officer did not frame the issue as desired. THEreupon, the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the civil court for a declaration that they were the owners of the property, and Mst. Goran was not entitled to claim possession or partition. THEir case was that as a Hindu widow she was only entitled to maintenance.
(3.) WE are of opinion that the District Judge was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the suit in this case was barred under sec. 7 (2) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. WE may point out that learned counsel for the appellants assures us that the partition suit in the revenue court has not yet been decided and that the question of proprietary right raised in this case has never been previously determined. What we have said above is subject to these assumptions.