- (1.) THIS is a reference by the Munsif of Dungarpur under sec. 40 (2) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 (Act No. I of 1951); and has arisen in the following circumstances :
(2.) A suit was pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Dungarpur. That officer passed an order that the plaint should have been filed in the civil court. He, therefore, ordered that the plaint be returned for presentation to the proper civil court. When the case came 10 the court of Munsif, he was of the opinion that the revenue court was the proper court where the suit should have been tried and he has, therefore, made this reference. Though the referring order" of the Munsif is rather confused the question that arises for determination is whether the suit in this case is triable by the civil court under sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act or by the revenue court under item 12, Group B, Schedule 1 of Act No. I of 1951. Sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act entitles a person who is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law to file a suit to recover possession thereof notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. The essence of this section is that the plaintiff merely asserts that he was' in possession of certain immovable property and has been dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law and, therefore, claims to recover possession. In such a suit, the plaintiff does not set up any other title in himself. Thus, a suit under sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act is a suit based on earlier possession of the plaintiff who has been dispossessed. It is a speedy remedy and, therefore, the period of limitation is only six months. Item 12, Group B of Schedule provides for a suit for recovery of possession by a person who has been wrongly ejected or for compensation or for both. The period of limitation is three years, and this suit cannot be called a summary suit providing for a speedy remedy, for in the revenue law, the maximum period of limitation is generally three years except in certain exceptional cases. It seems to me that Item 12, Group B of Schedule I could not have meant to provide the same kind of remedy which is provided under sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The difficulty has arisen because of the use of the word 'person' and it may appear as if item 12, Group B, Schedule I provides for a suit by anybody who might have been dispossessed. The implication however, of this provision, in my opinion, may be inferred from the use of the words 'wrongly ejected'. Further, this item also provides for compensation. It seems, therefore, that a suit under this item is by a person who has some title as a tenant and has been ejected otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the revenue law. It is only then that he may be entitled to claim compensation. It may be mentioned that sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act, because it deals merely with an earlier possession and dispossession, has provided nothing about compensation which is given generally where title has been disturb-ed. A suit under this item is, in my opinion, of the same nature as a suit at serial No. 19 of Group B -of the Fourth Schedule of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939. That item provides for recovery of possession of a holding lor for compensation or for both. The use of the word 'holding' in the U. P. Tenancy Act clearly gives the idea that the person suing under that item has to allege that he has got a holding. Similarly to my mind, a person suing under item 12 Group B of the First Schedule has to allege some title as a tenant of some kind before he can file a suit under this item. It is this which distinguishes a suit under this item from a suit under sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act where no title of any kind has to be alleged and the suit is maintainable merely on the ground of earlier possession followed by dispossession, provided it is brought within six months of dispossession. All that, therefore, remains to see is whether on the plaint which was presented in this case, the suit falls under sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act or item 12, Group B Schedule I of Act 1 of 1951. In paragraph one of the plaint, the plaintiff says that he has been in possession of field No. 95 though it is entered in the khata of the defendant. In paragraph 2 he goes on to say that he had been in possession for the last 40 to 60 years and bad continued all along in possession and had been paying Re. 1/- as rent to the temple of Murlidharji. Since this allegation of payment of rent to the temple of Murlidharji was made by the plaintiff, he was claiming some sort of title as tenant, and was not merely basing his case on earlier possession followed by dispossession. Under these circumstances, the suit properly lies in the revenue court under item 12, Group B of the First Schedule. I, therefore, order the Munsif of Dungarpur to return the plaint for presentation to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dungarpur, who is competent to try it. . ;