JIWANDAN Vs. HINGALZDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against an order of the learned District Judge, Jaipur District. , dated 12th February, 1953, confirming the order of the learned Munsif dated 25th October, 1952, by which he directed return of the plaint to the petitioner for presenting to a revenue court.

(2.) THE petitioner instituted a suit in the court of Munsif, Jaipur District, on the allegation that he had two trees standing on his land, of which he was a muafidar, and the defendant Hinglazdan wrongfully cut the trees and sold them to one Bhura. It was alleged that petitioner prosecuted Hinglazdan and got him convicted under sec. 379, I. P. C. , and a sentence of fine was awarded. THE plaintiff claimed Rs. 101 /- as compensation for the damage done to his trees. THE plaintiff also impleaded Bhura, who was the purchaser of the timber from defendant No. 1. Bhura's plea was that he had purchased the wood bonafide from Hinglazdan, and had paid the price thereof to him. Hinglazdan pleaded that he was a co-owner of the trees, and was, therefore, entitled to cut and sell the trees. It was alleged that after the trees had been cut, certain compromise had been arrived at between the parties, and the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. An application was made on behalf of the defendant that the suit was not triable by a civil court. THE learned Munsif by reference to the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act held that the dispute was one relating to the ownership of the trees for which a provision has been made in Group E, item 2, of the First Schedule, and as such was triable by a Tehsildar. He referred to sec. 7 of the Act, and held that a claim, which was triable by a revenue court, was not entertainable by a civil court. He accordingly directed return of the plaint to the plaintiff. THE plaintiff filed an appeal, but the same judgment was upheld.