PRATAP SINGH Vs. MADHO SUNAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are sixteen applications in revision by the same defendant against whom sixteen plaintiffs have brought separate suits for possession of agricultural lands in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Bhilwara. The facts of these cases are quite similar and since only one common question of law is involved in all of them, they are disposed of together.

(2.) Each one of the plaintiff non-petitioner has averred in his plaint that he was in possession of a particular plot of agricultural land in village Gadarmala (which is also known as Bhopalgarh) from the time of his ancestors. Each one has given a description of his field in dispute and it need not be mentioned here. It has been averred by all the plaintiffs that the defendant started making unlawful encroachment on their fields in the month of Kartik Samwat 2010 and ultimately in the month of Kartik Samwat 2011, he unlawfully ploughed their fields with a tractor. This led to a dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant and the police, Bhilwara started proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code against both the parties. The Magistrate attached the fields in dispute pending the enquiry and later on restored their possession to the defendant. It was asserted that the fields in dispute were their "Bapi" and they were in their possession from the time of their ancestors and, therefore, each one of the plaintiffs prayed for a decree against the defendant directing him to restore the possession of the disputed field to him.

(3.) The defendant contested the plaintiffs claims and one of his objection in each case was that the suit was triable exclusively by the Revenue court and so the Civil court had no jurisdiction to try the same. This objection was turned down by the trial court on the ground that each suit was based on title and, therefore, it had jurisdiction to entertain and try it. The petitioner has challenged the correctness of this order passed by the trial court in each case. It would thus appear that the only point for determination in each one of the above noted cases before this court is "whether the suit is triable exclusively by a Revenue Court and, therefore, the Civil court has no jurisdiction to try the same?"