- (1.) THIS is an application for revision, and arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-applicant in the Court of Munsif, Thanagazi, for possession of certain agricultural land as well as for Rs. 200/- on account of damages.
(2.) ACCORDING to the plaint, the applicant Was the tenant of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3, and he was disposed from the land in suit by the defendant some time in the year 194. The plaintiff says that by this forcible dispossession, he was deprived of the crop of bajra and fodder valuing Rs. 500/- out of which he claimed Rs. 200/- only. The learned Munsif held that the suit was triable by a revenue court, and ordered the plaint to be returned to him for presentation to proper court. Against this order of the learned Munsif, the plaintiff went in appeal to the Court of District Judge, Alwar, but the order of the first court was maintained and the appeal was dismissed. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the appellate decree, but there being no second appeal against the present order of the learned Munsif, a request was made that the appeal be treated as revision. It has, therefore, been heard as an application for revision. At the time of hearing the plaintiff-applicant made a statement that he did not want to press the relief for possession, and confined his suit only to relief for damages. The suit, therefore, as it stands now, is only for damages. Mr. Pannalal for the applicant argued that such a suit can be tried only in a civil court. Mr. R. C. Vyas on behalf of the opposite party argued that even after the withdrawal of the prayer for possession, the suit remained a suit for compensation, and such a suit under serial No. 12 of Group B of Schedule I of the Rajasthan Revenue Court (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, could be tried by a revenue court only. Sec. 7 (2) of the Act forbids any court other than a revenue court from taking cognizance of any such suit. It was argued by Mr. Pannalal that the suit was not for compensation, but it was only for damages occasioned by the appropriation of goods belonging to the plaintiff by the defendant. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. Para 5 of the plaint makes it clear that what the plaintiff claims is compensation for the loss which has occurred to him on account of his wrongful possession. The plaintiff clearly says that on account of the dispossession complained of, he was deprived of cultivation ' of the property and by this dispossession he was deprived of the crop of bajra which would have given him 30 maunds of grain costing Rs. 390/-, and 80 maunds of fodder costing Rs. 200/ -. This is a clear claim for compensation on account of the plaintiff being deprived of the possession of the agricultural land which according to him was in his cultivatory possession. I cannot find any ground for interfering with the order of the lower court. The application for revision is dismissed with costs to the contesting opposite party. . ;