ROOPA Vs. MANNALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the Senior Civil Judge, Udaipur under sec. 243 (2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (No. III) of 1955.

(2.) THE facts out of which the reference arises may briefly be stated as follows. Mannalal and Pema plaintiffs opposite parties purchased certain agricultural land covered by khasra No. 63 in Udaipur from Thikana Kankroli some time in 1951, and thereafter on the 29th December, 1951, let out the land to opposite party Lala for a year, the latter agreeing by a writing to, pay certain rem in kind. Lala then employed Roopa to assist him in cultivation. Roopa eventually assumed possession of the field and turned out Lala. Consequently, the plaintiffs opposite parties Mannalal and Pema filed a suit for possession of the field and tor mesne profits. THE suit was filed in the court of the Assistant Collector, Udaipur, who dismissed it on the merits by his judgment dated the 16th July, 1955. THE plaintiffs respondents then went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur, who by his order dated the 27th September, 1955 remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector for a fresh decision after a proper trial. After the case went back to the Assistant Collector on the 3rd October, 1935, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (No. III) of 1955 came into force on the 15th October, 1955. THE Assistant Collector by his order dated the 23rd December, 1955, came to form the opinion that the suit was triable by a civil court and in that view transferred it to the Munsiff Udaipur. I have perused that order, and all that the Assistant Collector generally said was that the plaintiffs' suit was founded on an agreement, and that the defendant was not a trespasser, and, therefore, the suit was not exclusively triable by a revenue court. Thus the case came to the court of the Munsiff, Udaipur. Roopa then moved an application in that court that the case was exclusively triable by a revenue court. THE Munsiff Udaipur dismissed this objection by his order dated the 7th April, 1956, and in due course decreed the plaintiffs' suit. Roopa went in appeal to Senior Civil Judge, Udaipur, and one of the contentions raised before him was that the suit was exclusively triable by a revenue court, and the Munsiff, Udaipur had no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of it. THE learned Senior Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the contention raised by Roopa was well founded, and that the civil court had exceed us jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the suit and has, therefore, made the present reference.