BEGRAJ Vs. GUMANARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision application by the plaintiffs against an order of Munsiff Bhadra returning the plaint for presentation to proper court, which was confirmed on appeal by the Senior Civil Judge, Ganganagar.

(2.) The plaintiffs claim to be the owners in possession of a Bada situated in the Abadi land of village Deeplana. Gumanaram defendant No. 1 filed a criminal complaint under sec. 447 Indian Penal Code in respect of this Bada but it was dismissed on 23.9.1953. Thereupon he instituted a suit for possession thereof in the revenue court which was finally decreed by the Revenue Board on 14.2.1956. The plaintiffs then instituted the present suit, in the Court of Munsiff Bhadra, substanti -ally for a declaration that the decree of the revenue court about the Bada in favour of the defendants is void, being without jurisdiction, and is not binding on them and for consequential reliefs. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the orders of the courts below are erroneous as neither the Rajasthan Tenancy Act nor the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act contain any provision for instituting a suit of this nature.

(3.) The learned Munsiff based his order on the ground that Shri Kalyan Singh Tehsilder, who was examined by the plaintiffs on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, stated that the land formed part of Khasra No. 106. The learned Munsiff has also referred to sec. 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. That section only provides for a suit for injunction against wrongful ejectment by a tenant. The learned counsel for the respondents was unable to point out any provision in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act or the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for bringing a suit of the nature instituted by the plaintiffs, namely, one for a declaration that a particular judgment of the revenue court is void against the plaintiff. It follows that a suit like the present one can only be tried by the civil court.