SANGRAM SINGH Vs. RAM NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal against appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur, upholding the interim order of the S. D. O. , Pratabgarh, whereby the appellants' objection regarding jurisdiction was disallowed and the suit was held triable by revenue court.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and have examined the record as well. The plaintiff stated in his plaint that he had been in possession of the land in dispute since more than 20 years, had been continuously paying rent to the defendants, and that defendants were manipulating to dispossess him wrongfully. It was, therefore prayed that the plaintiff be declared to be a khatedar tenant of the land in dispute, that a document alleged to have been executed through force be declared cancelled and that the defendants be permanently restrained from interfering with his possession. Obviously three reliefs were thus sought in the plaint. Those relating to grant of a permanent injunction and cancellation of a document are admittedly beyond the jurisdiction of a Revenue Court,, The third regarding declaration of a khatedars' status is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the revenue court, vide item No 13, Group B, Schedule I of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Procedure and Jurisdiction Act. As observed by Shri Wanchoo Chief Justice in 1953 RLW 333 "once the cause of action is such that a suit can be brought in the revenue court on the basis of it and some relief obtained, the suit must be filed in the revenue court even though it may be possible to ask for greater or additional or some different relief from the civil court. Thus the Rajasthan Act is more strongly in favour of the jurisdiction of the revenue court than is the case with the UP. Act, and where therefore a case comes under one of the items in the Schedules to the Rajasthan Act and is based on a cause of action arising under any of these items, the suit must be filed in the revenue court. It is immaterial whether by filing the suit in the civil court, the plaintiff might be able to ask for a relief greater than or additional to or not identical with that which the revenue court could have granted. He has to file the suit in the revenue court in view of this explanation and, of course, if he asks for something which the revenue court is not in a position to give him, the revenue court will only give him that relief which could be granted to him under the provision of Act I of 1951 read with the various rent and revenue laws of the various covenanting State". The lower-courts were, therefore, in view of this clear exposition of law justified in holding that the suit, was triable by a Revenue Court. There is, thus, no substance in this appeal which is hereby rejected. .