DWARKA PRASAD, J. - (1.)THESE three appeals arise out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on November 18, 1983 dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants.
(2.)THE only question which arises in these appeals is as to whether the suits filed, by the respondent No. 3 in each of these appeals, in the court of Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh was properly triable by a Revenue court or was triable by a Civil court.
The respondent No. 3 filed three suits, one each against each one of the appellants, in the court of Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh for possession of a piece of agricultural land and claiming a declaration of her right as a khatedar tenant of such land and for recovery of damages. The appellants, who were the defendants in the three suits, took the objection that the suits were triable by a Civil court and that the Revenue court had no jurisdiction. Issues No. 8 and 9 were framed by the trial court in this respec and were tried as preliminary issues The Assistant Collector held that the Revenue court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits. Revision petitions preferred by the appellants before the Board of Revenue were dismissed and it was held that the suits were mainly for declaration of Khatedari rights and for ejectment and as there was no prayer for cancellation of sale-deeds nor any such prayer was necessary to be made, the suits were triable by the Revenue court. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue, all the three appellants filed separate writ petitions in this Court which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated November 18, 1983, as mentioned earlier.

It is well settled that the question of jurisdiction ought to be decided on the basis of allegations made in the plaint. There is no doubt that some times the plaint is so drafted as to camouflage the real purpose thereof and as such it has often been held that the substance of the plaint should be considered by the court for the purpose of determination of the question of jurisdiction.

In Chandan Mal. vs. Dawar (1), it was observed that the question of jurisdiction must be initially determined on the basis of the allegations made in the plaint and that the substance of the plaint and its main object should be kept in view and not merely its outward form. Modi j. , observed in that case that if the aforesaid principles were not kept in view it may be open to a party to evade the liability as to exclusiveness of jurisdiction. However, it was made clear that case should be taken not to introduce anything in the plaint which may not be found there or which may be foreign to its main purpose. In another decision, in the case of Sukhlal vs. Devilal (2) Modi J. , speaking for the court, enunciated the true principles, by observing that the plaint as a whole should be looked at and that the substance of the plaint and not its osten-sible form really matters. Further nothing should be imported into the plaint, which it really does not contain, either actually or by necessary implication. Thus, a plaint should be construed as it is and not as it ought to be.

In Ratanlal vs. Gram Panchayat Agolai (3), one of us, sitting singly observed as under- "it is well sealed that the question of jurisdiction has to be decided on the basis of the averments made in the plaint. It is of course true that not only the relief claimed in the plaint but all the allegations made therein should be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the question as to whether the suit is exclusively triable by a Revenue court or not. The court must be guided by the substance of the plaint and not merely by its form. Therefore, in order to arrive at a correct conclusion on the question of jurisdiction, the substance of the plaint must be taken into consideration ot find out the true nature or the object of the suit. "

(3.)IN Shyam Kumar vs. Budh Singh (4) Sachar, J. observed as under:- "it is well settled that the question of jurisdiction, namely, whether a suit is exclusively triable by a Revenue court or a Civil court can take cognizance of it has to be decided on the allegations made in the plaint. It is also further settled that it is the substance of the plaint and true nature of the suit that is to be seen to determine the question of jurisdiction. If in substance the relief claimed is one which the Revenue courts alone are entitled to give the jurisdiction of the Civil courts will be ousted even though it may require the Revenue court to incidentally determine some ancillary facts. "
Another principle which has to be kept in view is that exclusion of jurisdiction of a Civil court cannot be lightly inferred and the jurisdiction of the Civil court cannot be ousted until the exclusion is clearly established. Under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Civil court can entertain a suit of a civil nature except a suit of which cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. It Abdul Waheed Khan vs. Bhawani (5) their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that it was also equally well settled that a statute ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil court must be strictly construed.

Now section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 provides that all suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a Revenue court and further it has been provided that no court other than a Revenue court shall 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. The explanation appended to Section 207 provides that if the cause of action is one in respect of which relief might be granted by the Revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the Civil court is greater than, or additional to or is not identical with that which the Revenue court may possibly grant. Section 88 of the Tenancy Act provides for filing of a suit for declaration by a person claiming to be a tenant, in respect of his right as a tenant or for declaration of his share in a joint tenancy. Further Section 183 of the Tenancy Act provides for filing a suit for ejectment of a trespasser who has taken or retained possession of land without any lawful authority. The suits covered by section 88 and 183 of the Tenancy Act are included at items No. 5 and 23 respectively in the Third Schedule appended to the Tenancy Act. Thus in respect of matters covered by the aforesaid items included in the Third Schedule, the Revenue courts alone have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain suits, for declaration of the plaintiff's right as a tenant of agricultural land and for ejectment of a trespasser therefrom, According to the provisions of Section 207 of the Tenancy Act, the jurisdiction of the Revenue court to try a suit of the nature specified in items No. 5 and 23 relating to agricultural tenancies, would be based on the cause of action for filing such suit. The terms' cause of action,' though no where defined is now very well understood. It means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment. (See Mohammad Khalil Khan vs. Mahbub Ali Mian (6) It follows that in each and very case the cause of action for filing of the suit shall have to be strictly scrutinised in order to determine whether the suit is exclusively cognizable by a Revenue court or is impliedly cognizable only by a Revenue court or is cognizable by a Civil court. If more than one reliefs are claimed in the suit, then the jurisdiction of the Civil or Revenue courts to entertain the suit shall be determined on the basis as to what is the real or substantial or main relief claimed in the suit.