MOTI SINGH Vs. CHUNNILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by defendant against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner Jaipur, dated 31. 1. 57, reversing the original order of the Sub-Divisionl Officer, Amber, dated 4. 7. 56 whereby respondents' suit for recovery of compensation and mesne profits was held triable by a Civil Court.

(2.) WE have heard the parties. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs had been in continuous possession of the land in dispute as tenants of a long standing that the defendant wrongfully dispossessed them on 20. 7. 52, that the plaintiffs sought reinstatement under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 and were successful, that the plaintiffs could get possession on even though 30. 6. 55 their request for reinstatement was decided in their favour on 12. 12. 54 and that the plaintiffs were, therefore, entitled to Rs. 4770/91 as mesne profits for six harvests and losses stained by them in conducting the case. This suit was instituted on 25. 8. 55 under Schedule I, Group B, Item 12 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. The defendant filed his written statement on 4. 1. 56 i. e. after the enforcement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act on 15. 9. 55. One of the pleas taken in the written statement was that the suit was not triable in a revenue court. The trial court held that Item 12. Group B of the 1st Schedule of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act provided for recovery of possession by a person who has been wrongly ejected or compensated or both, but as no such provision was laid down in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the suit could not be tried by a revenue court. The plaintiffs went up in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner who held that the revenue court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it was filed prior to the enforcement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. He accordingly allowed the appeal and remanded the suit for a trial. Hence this second appeal.