GHISU Vs. SURJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, against an appellate decree of the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur reversing the decree of the trial court, has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as well. The lower appellate court has held that the suit was not triable by a revenue court and obviously the plaint should have been directed to be returned for presentation in a competent court and rejection of the same was unjustifiable. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has not been able to show us that the suit could be tried in a revenue court. It has been averred in the amended plaint dated 17 -1 -52 that the land in dispute was in the bapi of the plaintiffs, that Devi Lal,father of the plaintiffs, in his life time allowed Surajmal defendant to cultivate the land with a view to help him, that Devilal died in 1948 leaving behind the plaintiffs who were minors at that time and that the plaintiffs lived under the guardianship of the defendant who being required subsequently to restore the land to the plaintiffs refused to do so. The plaintiffs prayed for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The question as to whether such a suit is triable by a civil court or not stands determined by a decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 1955 RLW 23 (Gordhan Versus Kishenlal). As regards the applicability of Art.,10, Group B, of Schedule I of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, it was observed by the learned judges that: - -

(3.) The facts of the present case resemble to a great extent the facts of the ruling referred to above. In that case the plaintiffs sued the defendants on the allegations that the land described in the plaint was made over in the defendants during the minority of the plaintiffs on the condition that it would be returned to them when they became majors and wish to manage their own land. The learned Civil Judge in that case held that the defendant became trespassers on their refusal to deliver the land and a suit was therefore governed by Art. 10. This view was set aside by the learned Judges and it was held that Art, 10 covers only a case where a tenant is alleged to enter into wrongful possession and not the case of a person who having entered lawfully becomes a trespasser by virtue of subsequent events. The learned Additional Commissioner was therefore, justified in holding that the suit was not triable by a revenue court. He had however no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit. The proper course for him was to return the plaint for being presented in the competent court. We would, therefore, allow this appeal to the extent that the order of dismissal will be set aside and the plaint shall be returned to the plaintiffs after endorsement of necessary particulars under Rule 13 of the Rules framed under sec. 1 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, for being presented in a competent Civil Court.