CHIROJI Vs. BRINDABANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the defendant against the appellate decree of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur dated 5-11-1954 modifying in part the decree of the trial court whereby the respondents' suit for recovery of compensation was decreed.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as well. The only contention put forth on behalf of the appellant before us is that the suit as framed was not with in the cognizance of a revenue court and the plaint should have been returned for presentation to a civil court. To our mind there is no substance in this contention. The suit is covered by item No. 12 Group 'b' Schedule 1 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, as decided by the Rajasthan High Court in Bhawni Ram vs. Seth Ram Narain, reported in 1955 R. L. W. 112. It was held therein that the term 'compensation's wider in its scope then the term 'mesne profits' and it includes the latter because in assessing the measure of compensation the court has to take into account the mesne profits of the property. Obviously a claim to compensation or keeping the plaintiff out of possession of the agricultural land includes a claim to mesne profits. " The actual pecuniary loss directly sustained, e. g. the actual amount of money wrongfully withheld, the pecuniary value of the property wrongfully detained is also included in the word 'compensation. ' The revenue courts are competent to try suits of such nature. The learned counsel for the appellant has frankly conceded his inability to show us any other point of law that may be involved in the case. The appeal is hereby rejected. .