MOHAR SINGH Vs. WAZIR CHAND
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
JAGAT NARAYAN, J. -
(1.)THIS is a revision application by one of the defendants named Mohar Singh against an order of the Civil Judge, Alwar, holding that the civil court has jurisdiction to try the present suit, which relates exclusively to agricultural land.
(2.)ONE Pyare Ram was the Khatedar tenant of the land in dispute. After his death his widow Smt. Tikku Bai executed a sale-deed in respect of the land in favour of the applicant and respondent No. 4 to 7 on 30-10-65. Pyare Ram had left a son named Wazir Chand, who filed the present suit on 21-5-66 in the court of Civil Judge Alwar for a declaration that after the death of Pyare Ram he was the sole Khatedar tenant of the land in suit and his mother had no right to alienate it and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession over it.
The applicant and the other defendants in whose favour the sale-deed was executed resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try it. This objection was overruled by the learned Civil Judge despite the fact that his attention was drawn to a number of decisions of this Court. One of these decisions is Asala vs. Narain (l ). In this decision sec. 207 of the Tenancy Act came up for interpretation. This section runs as follows : "suits and applications cognizable by revenue courts only - (1) All suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court. (2) 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. Explanation - 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 could have granted. "
It was held that all suits and applications "of the nature" specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court and that the intention of the Legislature in using this phrase definitely seems to be that suits which not only squarely fall within the four walls of the various items specified in the Third Schedule but also those which may not so fall but which may partake of the nature thereof can be heard and determined by a revenue court only.
In Gulla vs. Doliya (2) sec. 7 (2) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act came up for interpretation, which ran as follows : "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. "
It was held that : "in the latter Act, the words are "any relief" and thus taken along with the Explanation the jurisdiction of the courts of revenue comes in when any relief can be granted by them and it is immaterial that a greater, or additional or some different relief can be asked from the civil court. "
The decision in Shyamlal vs. Hira Nath Ghela (3) was followed- It was held in that case that if adequate relief can be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court is not identical with that which the revenue court could have granted, and that if a suit be in its essence cognizable by a revenue court, the addition of a prayer for injunction will not take the case out of the cognizance of that court,
So far as the present case is concerned the revenue court is competent to grant a declaration under sec. 88 (1) of the Tenancy Act, that "the plaintiff is the sole Khatedar tenant of the land in suit". It can grant an injunction under sec. 92-A of the Act against the defendant in whose favour the sale-deed has been executed restraining them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the land in suit. This relief is adequate in the circumstances of the present case and is the substantial relief which the plaintiff wishes to claim. He will only be declared to be the sole Khatedar tenant on the finding that he was the sole heir of his father Pyare Ram and that his mother Smt. Tikki Bai had no interest in the land in suit entitling her to execute a sale-deed in respect of it.
I accordingly allow the revision application, set aside the order of the trial court and direct it to return the plaint for presentation to proper court. Further I direct it to issue a certificate under sec. 632) of the Rajasthan Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1961 for the refund of the court-fee paid on the plaint.
In the Circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of it. .
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.