- (1.) THIS is a reference by the Assistant Collector, Sojat, under sec. 40 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 (Act No. 1 of 1951), and has arisen in the following circumstances.
(2.) THE plaintiffs Chandanmal and others are mortgagees in possession of a certain well called Nokhra Motora situated in village Mani, Tehsil Sojat. THE plaintiffs claimed their possession in respect of half of this well by virtue of a Baraskati deed dated Asad Sudi 15, Svt. , 2000, executed in their favour by defendants Dhulsingh and others and further alleged that they were also in possession of the other half obviously with the consent of the original owners and that they carried on cultivation on the well and the land in question for several years. THEir grievance was that defendant No. 1 Dawar had commenced forcible cultivation on the well in question, and the said defendant was bent upon cultivating the land inspite of protest, and, therefore, they instituted the present suit. THE plaintiffs prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant from carrying on any cultivation on the well in question and from interfering with their possession in any manner whatsoever. THEy also prayed for recovery of possession in case it was found that they were out of possession of the portion of the well upon which the defendant had started cultivation. THEy further claimed a sum of Rs. 100 - as damages and further compensation in lieu of loss of rent up to the period the defendant removes his possession from the land in question. The plaintiffs instituted their suit on 31. 10. 1950 in the court of the Munsiff, Sojat. On 14th March, 1951, the Additional Munsiff to whose court the case had meanwhile been transferred, passed an order that the suit was triable by a revenue court and directed its transfer to the court of the Assistant Collector, Sojat, under sec. 6 (3) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. The case was, accordingly, transferred to the court of the learned Assistant Collector, Sojat. On the 19th October, 1951, the learned Assistant Collector recorded an order that the suit was triable by a civil court, and has made the present reference after obtaining the sanction of the Collector Pali under sec. 40 (3) of the said Act. None of the parties to the suit has appeared in this Court. The point for determination is whether the present suit is cognizable by a revenue court or by a civil court. Now, sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act lays down that "all suits and applications of the nature specified in the first and second schedules shall be heard and determined by a revenue court. " The learned Assistant Collector appears to have thought that the present suit does not fall within any of the items of the first or second schedules of that Act. I am of opinion that in order to determine whether a suit is triable by a revenue court, or by a civil court, certain basic principles must be borne in mind. One such principle is that it should not be readily inferred that the jurisdiction of the civil courts is barred unless such an inference can be raised by an express provision of law or by necessary implication. Another thing which should be borne in mind is that the question of jurisdiction must be initially determined by the allegations made in the plaint. Thus, whether a suit for possession of land is cognizable by a civil court or not depends entirely upon the frame of the suit and the allegations contained in the plaint. A further principle which should be kept in view is what is the substance of the suit and what is its main object, or, in other words, what is the real contest between the parties. In order to determine this the principle is well settled that one. must look to the substance of the plaint and not merely to its outward form. If this is not done, it is obvious that it may be open to a party to evade the entire law as to exclusiveness of jurisdiction. It is of course to be remembered that care should be taken not to introduce anything into the plaint which may not really be found there or which may be foreign to its main purpose. Bearing these principles in mind, I have to decide the question of jurisdiction involved in the present case. On a careful analysis of the plaint, I find that the real gist of it is that the plaintiffs are suing in respect of agricultural land, and their real object is to secure possession in respect of the land in dispute, either by recovery thereof or by issue of an injunction in respect of it against the defendant. They have also claimed damages for interference with their possession and have further claimed compensation for loss of Hasil for the period during which the defendant may remain in possession. I am of opinion that such a suit does fall within item 10 or item 12 of the first schedule of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. Item 10 relates to a suit for the ejectment of a trespasser taking possession of land without lawful authority. Item 12 relates to a suit for recovery of possession by a person who has been wrongfully ejected or for compensation or for both. I say that present suit falls within the ambit of these two items, for according to the allegations contained in the plaint, the defendant is certainly a trespasser who has taken possession of the land without lawful authority, and recovery of possession is also claimed and so also compensation. It is true that an injunction has also been claimed, but that is really an ancillary relief in the circumstances of this case. Under these circumstances, the suit is really one which falls within the four corners of the first schedule of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, under items 10 and 12. Sec. 7 (2) of the said Act clearly provides that no court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any suit of the nature specified in the first and second schedules thereof, or of any suit based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit. It is further provided in the explanation to that section that if the cause of action is one in respect 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. The main relief in the present case which the plaintiff seeks is, in my opinion, the recovery of possession or the ejectment of the defendant and for compensation, and the circumstances that an injunction has also been asked for, does not go to detract from the very nature of the suit being of a revenue character. I hold, therefore, that the suit is cognizable exclusively by a revenue court under sec. 7 (2) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, and shall proceed accordingly. The reference is hereby rejected. .;