CHIRANJILAL Vs. RAMADHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 11-6-1954 in a case relating to recovery of had patelai.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. The Opposite party claims some money from the applicant on the ground that he had received from the Tehsil some portion of had patelai which was due to him. In other words the opposite-party seeks to recover from the applicant money received by the applicant for the use of the opposite party. This is purely a cause of a action within the cognizance of a civil court. The learned counsel for the opposite party has frankly conceded his inability to show us anything in the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction Act, which may confer any jurisdiction upon a revenue court to decide a case of this nature. The Tehsildar was perfectly correct in holding that the dispute was of a civil nature and could not be decided by a revenue court. Both the appellate courts without examining this question held that the opposite party was entitled to get the money involved in the case. It is really surpring that the learned Additional Commissioner and the learned Collector omitted to decide as to whether the revenue court had any jurisdiction in the matter or not, specially when the Tehsildar had pointed out the absence of jurisdiction. The merits of the case can be decided only if it is found that the case is within the cognizance of a revenue court. The findings of the lower appellate court practically amounts to deciding a case beyond their jurisdiction and hence they are utterly ineffective. WE would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the orders of the lower appellate courts and restore that of the Tehsildar dated 13th October, 1953. .