LALA Vs. SUJANSINGH
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-3-10
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on March 05,1952

LALA Appellant
VERSUS
SUJANSINGH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

BHAWANISHANKER VS. ROOPSHANKER [LAWS(RAJ)-1954-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
ROOP SINGH VS. JUNJAR SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-1956-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDA VS. GANGADHAR [LAWS(RAJ)-1957-3-12] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is a reference by the learned Assistant Collector, Sojat, under sec. 40 (1) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 (Act No. 1 of 1951)
(2.)THE plaintiffs, Lala and seven others filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, Sojat, on 21st August 1945 on the allegations that they were in possession of a well Sujansagar alias matawa dujori, and 240 bighas of land appertaining thereto in village Hjria Mali. THE village Haria Mali was stated to be one of the villages in Thikana Bhesana held by defendant No. 1. It was alleged that defendants Nos. 4 to 7 were allowed to sink a new well on the land which adjoined the plaintiff's property, but in so doing took into possession a field roirhawala belonging to the plaintiffs. Certain civil and criminal litigation followed ending in a compromise between the parties by which the defendants agreed to pay certain amount of compensation and further not to encroach upon the plaintiff's land. It was alleged that the defendants in collusion with one another have again decided to harass the plaintiffs by interfering with the plaintiff's cultivation in the roirhawala field. THE plaintiffs prayed for a permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in the plaintiff's possession over 240 bighas of land appertaining to bera Sujansagar including the roirhawala field, and claimed Rs. 700/- as compensation for the damage already caused by interference. Only some of the defendants filed written statements. THEy agreed that the well Sujansagar and the land appertaining thereto was the plaintiffs' bapi shud land, but denied the plaintiffs' title or interest in roirhawala field. Certain issues were framed and the case proceeded. On 16th March 1951, the Munsif recorded an order that the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act having come into force, and the suit being one which was triable by the Revenue Court, it may be transferred to the Assistant Collector under sec. 6 (3) of that Act. Learned Assistant Collector,' however came to a different conclusion and on 31st August 1951 recorded an order that the main relief in the suit being one for permanent injunction, it was not provided for under the Schedules referred to in sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, and was not triable by a Revenue Court. He has accordingly made this reference after obtaining sanction of the Collector.
The learned Munsif while ordering transfer of this case from his court to the Assistant Collector, Sojat on 16th March 1951 has not referred to the category of cases mentioned in the Schedule of cases declared to be triable by a Revenue Court. The learned Assistant Collector is right in holding that the present suit is one primarily for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the plaintiff's possession and is not provided for in any of the classes of suit mentioned as triable by Revenue Court in the Schedules referred to in sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Proce-dure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. The claim for damages is only an ancillary relief.

It is declared under sec. 40 (4) that the Court of Munsif is competent to try the suit, and the case is, therefore transferred to the Court of Munsif, Sojat, for proceeding further according to law. It may be pointed out that the suit was instituted long before the enforcement of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, and no question of return of plaint, therefore, arises in this case. .



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.