Ranawat, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by the defendant against an order of the Munsif, Jhalrapatan, dated the 11th February, 1952 by which an objection of the defendant that the suit was exclusively triable by a Revenue Court was disallowed. The learned Munsif placed his reliance on the authorities in the cases of Gangadin vs. Piyare (1) and Hurro Durga Chowdhrani vs. Surut Sundaridebi (2 ).
(2.) THE facts of this case are that the plaintiff Seth Ramnath filed a suit against Bhawaniram in the court of the Munsif, Jhalrapatan, on the 11th December, 1951 alleging that he was forcibly kept out of the possession of land khasra No. 5 measuring 15 bighas in village Sheopur (Tehsil Patan) for the Svt. year 2007 and 2008 and the plaintiff thereby suffered a loss of Rs. 600/ -. He therefore claimed an amount of Rs. 600/-from the defendant. THE defendant raised a plea of jurisdiction and he claimed that the suit was exclusively triable by a Revenue Court under sec. 7, Schedule I, Group B - item No. 12 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. THE learned Munsif after hearing the arguments of both sides held that the suit was for means profits and as such it did not fall within the scope of item 12, Group B, Schedule I of the said Act. THE defendant has now come in revision and it has been urged that the court below was wrong in holding that the suit was one which did not come within the scope of item 12, Group B, Schedule I of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. The question which has been raised in this case is whether a suit for mesne profits by a tenant against a trespasser who has kept him out of the possession of the land would fall within the scope of item No. 12, Group B, Schedule I of the said Act. Mesne profits has been defined in sec. 2 (12) of the Civil Procedure Code as follows - "mesne Profits or property means those profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom, together with interest on such profits,but shall not include profits due to improvements made by the person in wrong possession. " The word "compensation" has been analysed to include the following items in the Law of Damages and Compensation by C. Kameshwara Rao, 2nd Edition, Chapter 1, paragraph 9 - " (1) The actual pecuniary loss directly sustained, e. g. , the actual amount of money wrongfully withheld, the pecuniary value of the property wrongfully detained. (2) The indirect pecuniary loss e. g. the loss or profits, loss of credit, loss of reputation, loss of business etc. (3) The value of time spent in establishing the right violated, (4) The actual expenses or cost of suit. (5) The mental suffering e. g. vexation, anxiety and worry. (6) The bodily suffering produced by personal injuries e. g. , pain end the consequent illness. (7) The sense of wrong or insult felt by the sufferer on account of the act of omission being done with a malicious deliberate intention. " The author further notes that the element of injuries Nos. 1 to 5 enumerated above are common to all kinds of wrongs and to these the element of bodily suffering has to be added in cases of personal violence. The learned Author in Chapter XIV, paragraph33 has further noted that mesne profits are in the nature of compensation to the plaintiff for the exclusive use of the land or other immovable property by the other party and that they are damages for the wrongful withholding of possession of the party entitled thereto. Cases of Midnapore Zamindari Co. , vs. Kumar Naresh Narayan Roy (3) and Girish Chandra Lahiri vs. Shashi Shekhareswar Roy (4) have been referred to in this connection. A person who is entitled to the possession of land, if kept out of possession by another, is entitled to recover mesne profits by way of compensation or damages under the Law of Torts. In accessing mesne profits the basis for the calculation is what the person in wrongful possession did really realise or might by good management, have realised from the property and because mesne profits have been defined by sec. 2 (12) C. P. C. the plaintiff in such a case cannot realise what the person dispossessed would have realised if the possession had remained with him. In view of the meaning of the terms "compensation" and mesne profits it would be noticed that the term "compensation" is wider in scope than the term mesne profits and it includes the latter, because in assessing the measure of compensation the court has to take into account the mesne profits of the property. The learned Munsif has not given any reasons as to why he came to the conclusion that the present suit was for mesne profits and not for compensation but he has taken assistance from the judgments in the case of Gangadin vs. Piyare (I) and Hurro Durga Chowdhrani vs. Surut Sundari Debi (2), referred to above. In Gangadin's case the question was whether a right to claim mesne profits was right to claim mesne profits was not a mere right to sue within the meaning of sec. 6 of the Transfer of Property Act but a right to the mesne profits belongs to the owner of the land and it is an existing right which can not be described as a mere right to sue. In the present case no such question is involved as to the nature of mesne profits and the decision in Gangadin's (l) case is, therefore, of no help for the purpose of this case. Similarly, the case of Hurro Durga Chowdhrani (2) is clearly distinguishable. In that case a decree stated that mesne profits were to be recovered with interest from the date of their ascertainment and it was held that the court executing the decree had no authority to allow interest year by year upon the collections which ought to have been received, because the term mesne profits mean the amount which might have been received from the land deducting the charges for collection, and does not include damage resulting from their not having been paid as they became due for loss of interest year by year. That case simply dealt with the scope of mesne profits in so far as collection of interest year to year was concerned, in interpreting the terms of the decree which provided payment of mesne profits. No such questions has been raised in this case. The question hear relates to the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit. Obviously a claim to compensation for keeping the plaintiff out of the possession of agricultural land includes a claim to mesne profits and the intention of the legislature in making a provision for suits of compensation in item No. 12, Group B of Schedule I of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act should be taken to include a claim to mesne profits in the meaning of the term "compensation". The provision in item No. 12 referred to above would become meaningless if a contrary meaning is put on the term "compensation" as has been done by the learned lower court. The state of law would be rended uncertain in case such a limited interpretation is given to the term compensation in this contract. This revision application is not hit by the decision of this Court in Purohit Swarup Narain vs. Gopinath (5) on account of the provisions of sec. 42 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, whereby this point cannot be raised in second appeal. The decision of the lower court relates to a question of jurisdiction and as by a wrong decision on such a question the court would be exercising jurisdiction not vested in it by law, revision under sec. 115 C. P. C. is competent. This revision application is allowed and the order of the Munsif, Jhalrapatan, dated the 11th February 1952 is set aside and he is directed to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court. No order as to costs. .;