- (1.) IN this second appeal the defendant has prayed for transfer of this appeal to the revenue court under sec. 3 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act (No. XXIV of 1945) and Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act (I of 1947 ). The respondent has contested that the case is triable by a civil court.
(2.) THE plaintiff Nanulal filed a suit in the court of the Munsif, Jaipur East, for Rs. 360/- against Motilal on the allegation that village Ladpura was granted by the State to Amar Chand, one of the ancestors of the parties. Amarchand had three sons, Hukamchand, Uttamchand, and Chimanlal. THE Village Ladpura was, therefore, divided in three shares among the three sons of Amarchand. In addition to the village Ladpura, Amarchand also acquired two wells in the village Newta, which were also divided among the three sons of Amarchand. THE plaintiff and the defendant are the descendants of Hukamchand and are entitled to one-half share each out of the one-third share of Hukamchand of the village Ladpura and the two wells in the village Newta. THE plaintiff had obtained a declaratory decree from a competent court regarding partition of Hukamchand's share between himself and the defendant, by which the plaintiff was declared to be entitled to one half share. THE eldest male member in the line of the three sons of Amarchand enjoys the status of a Matmidar. In the line of Hukamchand the defendant is the Matmidar. THE three Matmidars of village Ladpura entered into a contract regarding the management of the revenues of the village Ladpura and the two wells in the village Newta, by which each Matmidar undertook to manage the village Ladpura for six years at a time and the two wells in the Newta for seven years at a time paying to the other Matmidars, in lieu of their shares of profits, Rs. 202/- each relating to the profits of the village Ladpura and 11 Mounds of grain relating to the profits of the two wells of Newta. In pursuance of this agreement one of the Matmidars, Gulabchand, took over the management of the village Ladpura from Sialu of the Sambat year 1997 and the defendant undertook the management of the two wells in the village Newta from Unhalu of the Sambat year 1997. THE plaintiff claimed Rs. 202/- and Rs. 8/- as interest thereon for the Sambat years 1999 and 2000 on account of the profits of the village Ladpura of his half share as determined by the terms of the contract referred to above, and for Rs. 150/-being the price of 16-1/2 Mounds of grain and 12 seers of Zira relating to the profits of the two wells in the village Newta for Sambat years 1998 to 2000 on the allegation that rents and profits of the share of the plaintiff were collected by the defendant. The rights of the parties in the village Ladpura are those of a State grantee and in the village Newta are those of a cultivator. Consequently, the parties are governed by the provisions of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act in so far as the village Ladpura is concerned and by the Jaipur Tenancy Act in so far as the two wells in village Newta are concerned. Sec, 3 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act and its corresponding provision (Sec. 3) in the Jaipur Tenancy Act are exactly similar. Under Sec. 3 all proceedings pending before a civil court at the time these two Acts came into force, which would under these Acts be exclusively triable by a revenue court, are required to be transferred for disposal by such civil court to the revenue court competent under these Acts to deal with them. The question, therefore, arises if this case of second appeal, which was pending in the High Court of Jaipur at the time these two Acts came into force, should be transferred to a competent revenue court by virtue of the provisions of sec. 3 of the State Grants Land Tenures Act and sec. 3 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. The answer to this question depends on the answer to another question whether this suit is exclusively triable by a revenue court under the provisions of sec. 190 read with sec. 166 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act and sec. 105 read with sec. 100 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, which are given below: - Sec. 190 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act. 190 No suit or other proceedings shall lie or be instituted in any civil court with respect to any of the matter arising under this Act, for which a remedy by way of suit or application or otherwise has been provided by the provision of this Act : Provided that if a question of title is involved in a boundary dispute between State grantees, a civil suit shall lie. " Sec. 166 of the State Grants Land Tenures Act. 166. (1) A co-sharer may sue the estate-holder or another co-sharer for settlement of accounts and for his share of the profits of a Thikana or Pana or of any part thereof. (2) In any such suit the court may award to the plaintiff a share not only of the amounts actually collected but also of such sums as have remained uncollected owing to the negligence or misconduct of the estate-holder or the co-sharer in possession. (3) When a co-sharer sues another co-sharer under this section, the plaintiff shall make the estate holder and all co-sharers interested in the division of profits parties to the suit". Sec. 105 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. 105. All suits and applications of the nature specified in the second schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court, and 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 relief could be obtained by means of and 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 may not be identical with that which the revenue court could have granted. '; Sec. 100 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act. "100. (1) A co-sharer may sue another co-sharer for a settlement of accounts and for his share of the profits. (2) In a suit under this section against a number of co-sharers collectively, the decree shall specify the extent to which each of the defendants is affected thereby. " It is conceded by both parties that the relationship of the plaintiff and the defendant inter se is that of a co-sharer in so far as the properties of the village Ladpura and the two wells of village Newta are concerned and it is also an admitted fact that this suit relates to the share of profits of the plaintiff in respect of these properties. But it has been contended by the advocate for the defendant that the cause of action in the present suit is based on a contract and, therefore, the nature of this suit does not fall within the provisions of sec. 166 and sec. 100 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act and the Jaipur Tenancy Act respectively. It is further contended by him that this suit is for a specified sum and a suit under sec. 166 and sec. 100 should be both for settlement of accounts and for a share of profits. It may be observed that there is no contract between the parties to these proceedings forming the basis of this suit but in order to assess the value of profits the plaintiff has taken recourse to a contract between the three Matmidars relating to the management of these properties. It cannot, therefore, be said that this suit is based on a contract. The cause of action of the plaintiff is based on actual recovery of profits of the properties by the defendant of the share of the plaintiff. The contract between the Matmidars does not form part of the cause of action but it simply serves the purpose of finding out the quantum of the share of profits of the plaintiff. That contract, therefore, does not form the material part of the plaintiff's cause of action. The first argument of the plaintiff's advocate therefore, is not sound. The language of sec. 100 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act and of sec. 166 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act does not admit of any ambiguity on this point. The language is very clear and by virtue of both these sections suits for settlement of accounts and of shares of profits are jointly and severally cognizable by a revenue court. The preposition "for" appears both before the words "a settlement of accounts" and before "his share of profits. " Both the types of suits, are therefore, independently or jointly triable by the revenue courts. The conjunction "and" in the language of these two sections does not go to unite the two types of suits into one case, each one of the objects are governed by a separate preposition. The second argument of the advocate for the defendant, therefore, fails. In conclusion it may be stated that this is a suit by a co-sharer against another co-sharer for his said share of profits relating to a State grant and also to the land held under a tenancy and by virtue of the provisions of sec. 190 read with sec. 166 and the Schedule thereof of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act and sec. 105 read with sec. 100 and the Schedule thereof of the Jaipur Tenancy Act this suit is exclusively triable by a revenue court and a civil court is barred from dealing with it. Under sec. 3 of the State Grants Land Tenures Act and sec. 3 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act proceedings pending in a court at the time these laws came into force are required to be trans-ferred to a competent revenue court This is a second appeal and obviously the court competent to hear it can be none else than the Revenue Board. The application for transfer of this appeal is, therefore, allowed and it is ordered that this appeal be transferred to the Revenue Board for disposal. . ;