BHAGWAT Vs. MOHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff whose suit for recovery of possession over the land in dispute was dismissed by the trial court, the first appellate court confirming the same.

(2.) WE have heard the parties and have gone through the record as well. In view of the order that we are making in the case, it is unnecessary to examine the merits at any length. The suit as framed was clearly beyond the jurisdiction of revenue court on the enforcement of the Rajasthan Revenue Court (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. Averments in the plaint are that the plaintiff along with the defendants No. 3 and 4 are the joint owners biswedars of the land in dispute, that by a private arrangement between the owners the plaintiff had been in the exclusive possession of the land in dispute since long and that in the first week of December, 1948, he was dispossessed wrongfully by the defendants. The suit was filed on 12-1-49 i.e. within six months of the alleged dispossession. Clearly the basis of the suit was previous possession and subsequent dispossession without any reference to title and this is evidently a suit under sec.9 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to a decision of the Board reported in 1953 R.L.W. (Revenue Supplement) 36, wherein it was held that a suit under sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act is triable exclusively by revenue courts. WE need not examine the reasons advanced by the learned Members in support of their view. Obviously this decision was given in ignorance of previous decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 1952 RLW 261 (Nawalji vs. Jagji). The learned Chief Justice while deciding the reference observed that 'a suit under this item (Item 12, Group B, Schedule 1 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts(Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act, 1951) is by a person who has some title as a tenant and has been ejected otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the revenue law. It is only then that he may be entitled to claim compensation. The difficulty arising from the use of word 'Person' in Item 12 was examined and was resolved by a reference to the existence of the word 'wrongfully ejected' as also 'Compensation'. The analogous provisions of the O.P. Tenancy Act were also examined. It was observed that the distinguishing feature of a suit under sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act, where no title of any kind has to be alleged, is the fact that it is maintainable merely on the ground of earlier possession followed by dispossession. The High Court there fore, held that the revenue courts have no jurisdiction to try a suit under sec.9 of the Specific Relief Act. As the present suit was of this nature and was pending before it on the enforcement of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act, the trial court should have taken action under sec. 6(4) of the Act. WE would, therefore, allow this appeal set aside the orders of the lower courts and direct the trial court that the case be transferred to the Civil Court concerned as pointed out above.