HIRAGIR Vs. HEMRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the Civil Judge, Churu, under sec. 40 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act (No. 1) of 1951 (herein after referred to as the Revenue Courts Act (and has arisen under the following circumstances.

(2.) THE plaintiff Hiragir is the bhogta or Jagirdar of half Kanasi, Tehsil Rajgarh, and the defendants are the residents or asamis of that village. THE plaint iff is case was that in Khasra No. 24 measuring 29 odd bighas, there is a tank and its catchment area on which a number of trees are growing. He alleged that the defendants possessed a right to graze or water their cattle therein but had no right whatsoever to cut the trees or to take away their produce such as "long" etc. He further alleged that the defendants had, however, taken away the produce of the trees in question in Svt. 2006 and Svt. 2007 without any right to do so and thereby caused a loss to the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 200/ -. He eventually prayed that a decree the awarded in his favour for a sum of Rs. 200/- as price of the "long" and other produce taken away by the defendants from the land in question. THE plaintiff filed his suit on the 17th July, 1951, in the court of the Assistant Collector. Rajgarh. THE latter, however, was of the view that a revenue court had on jurisdiction to entertain such a suit and no that view he transferred the case to the court of the Munsif, Churu. I may state in passing that this was wrong because if the Assistant Collector was of the opinion that he had no jurisdiction to enter in the suit, which had been filed after the Revenue Courts Act had come into force, the proper procedure for him was to have returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court. He had no power to direct the transfer of the suit to a civil court himself. As the Munsiff's court was in abeyance at Churu at the time, the case came before the Civil Judge. THE Civil Judge in his turned was of the opinion that the suit was of a revenue nature and he had no jurisdiction to, take cognizance of it and he, therefore, returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court. Here again, I should like to say that in the circumstances of this case, the Civil Judge should have been better advised to have made a reference to this Court under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 40 instead of returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court which course, as will appear presently, led to further complications. THE plaintiff then presented his plaint in the court of the Assistant Collector again. THE Assistant Collector was still of the opinion that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and he referred the matter to the Collector. Strangely enough, the Collector also directed the Assistant Collector to return the case to the civil court. THE result was that the matter once again went to the Civil Judge and he has now made the present reference.