ONKAR Vs. MANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, dated 17 -5 -63, whereby he accepted the appeal filed by the respondents against the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer, Ballabhnagar dated 17 -1 -59 rejecting their objection regarding the jurisdiction of the said Court to entertain the application of the appellants for the execution of a decree for the possession of agricultural lands against the respondents under O.XXI, R.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It transpires that the aforesaid application was presented in the Court of the Asstt. Collector, Ballabhnagar, on 29 -7 -57 following the order of the Rajasthan High Court dated 6 -9 -55, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents against the appellate decree of the Court of the District Judge, Udaipur, dated 27 -2 -1938, confirming the decree of the Court of Sadar Cirwa dated 11 -10 -36 by which the decree of the Court Unthala dated 1 -9 -36 had been confirmed, was dismissed by the learned judges.

(2.) The respondents raised the question of jurisdiction in the Court of the Asstt. Collector who held that the execution proceedings related to a decree of the Naib Tehsildar, Unthala, which had been confirmed by the High Court and as the said Court was a Revenue Court and the matter under dispute lay within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts, the objection raised by the respondents had no substance. He, therefore, rejected the same. Having felt aggrieved by this order, the respondents filed an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur. The Appellate Court, however, held that at the time when the original dispute was decided by the Court at Unthala, there was no separate existence of Revenue Courts in the erstwhile State of Mewar, The revenue disputes lay within the jurisdiction of Civil Courts and as the said Court was a Civil Court, a revenue Court was not now empowered to entertain an application for the execution of a decree awarded by the said Court which had adjudicated upon the matter in dispute in the capacity of a Civil Court. The present revision petition is directed against this order.

(3.) As the law stands at present, there is no room for ambiguity in the matter. Sec. 206 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which came into operation on 15 -10 -1955 provides that any suits, applications, cases or proceedings pending before a Civil Court, when this Act came into force, which had been declared by sec. 207 to be exclusively triable by a Revenue Court, shall be transferred by such Civil Court to the Revenue Court competent under sec. 207 to deal with and dispose of the same. Under sec. 207 of the aforesaid Act, all suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule lie within the jurisdiction of a revenue Court and no Court other than a revenue Court is competent to take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. Under this Section, exclusive jurisdiction has been given to Revenue Courts in matters relating to rent, revenue and tenancy of agricultural holdings. The jurisdiction of a Civil Court has been barred with a view to providing a more convenient form than that of ordinary Civil Courts for the disposal of revenue matters. As has been held by the High Court of Rajasthan in Nathu Vs. Chuma (1958 RLW 300), a suit for the redemption of mortgage could be maintained only in a Revenue Court and no other Court than a Revenue Court could take cognizance of such cases. It was observed by the Honble Mr. Justice Modi in the aforesaid case, that a suit or application for the redemption of a mortgage with respect to agricultural land is a matter arising under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and it is a matter with respect to which no other Court than a Revenue Court can take cognizance as provided under Sub sec. (2) of sec. 207 of the aforesaid Act. It was observed by him that sec. 43 -A clearly provides for such suits in so far as they relate to mortgages made before the commencement of the Act. Sec.43 of the Act provides for such suits where the mortgages any have been made after the commencement of the Act. Between them, these two sections clearly indicate that the intention of the Legislature was that such suits were exclusively triable by a Revenue Court and if so, no Civil Court will have jurisdiction to entertain them.