Modi, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dungarpur, under sec. 40 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, (No. 1) of 1951, and has arisen in the following circumstances.
(2.) PARASRAM and Roopchand plaintiffs are the mortgagees of certain fields from Bhagchand and Hukka defendants who are said to have made the mortgage on27-l 1-1948. It appears that the mortgagors made over possession of one of the mortgaged fields to the mortgagees but declined to deliver possession of the other fields as their sugar-cane crop was standing thereon and required to be harvested. The plaintiffs demanded possession of the field after the defendants had collected the crop, and the letter declined to do so. Consequently the plaintiffs instituted the suit, out of which this reference has arisen, for recovery of possession of the suit filed from the defendants in the court of the Munsiff, Dungarpur, on 11th August, 1949, on the allegations herein before mentioned. The suit was pending in the court of the Munsiff when the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, came into force on the 31st January, 1951. An objection was raised before the Munsiff that the suit was of a revenue nature according to the said Act as a result of which he transferred it to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dungarpur, under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 6 of the Act. The Sub-provisional Officer seems to have held a different view regarding the nature of the case and transferred it back to the Munsiff. It may be mentioned in passing that the procedure adopted by the Sub-Divisional Officer was not quite correct and he should have made a reference with the permission of the Collector under sec. 40 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act to this Court. Be that as it may, the Munsiff again returned the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer asking the letter to make a reference to the High Court. The Sub-Divisional Officer instead of making a reference thought fit to entertain the case and he proceeded to decide it and eventually dismissed it. The plaintiffs thereupon went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur, who was apparently of the opinion that the case was of a civil nature and remanded it back to the Sub-Divisional Officer with a direct that he should make a reference to this Court. Hence this reference. The question to decide in this reference is whether the present suit of the mortgagees for recovery of the possession of a certain portion of the mortgaged land is of a civil nature or is cognizable exclusively by the revenue courts within the meaning of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, sec. 7 of the said 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, and sub-sec. (2) further provides that 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 and relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. It has, therefore, to be seen whether the present suit is covered by the first, or second schedule of the said Act. Learned Deputy Government Advocate argues that the present suit does not fall within any of the serials in the first schedule and it appears that this contention is well founded. Learned counsel for the defendants is not able to point out anything contrary to this submission. So far as the second schedule is concerned, it does appear that Group D provides tor a sua of this description at serial No 1 therefore, but the scope of this serial is confined to the Jaipur District only. The relevant portion of this item under Group D runs as follows: - "group D - Applications triable by a Sub Divisional Officer. Jaipur State (Jaipur Tenancy Act) Item No. 7.- By mortgagee for being put in possession of mortgaged land". It is clear, therefore, that it is not possible to extend the scope of this item generally and treat a suit or application of this description as one of a revenue nature. It follows that if a suit of the present description cannot be brought within the four corners of section 7 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, the civil courts cannot be deprived of their jurisdiction to try such suits, nor can it be said that such a suit is exclusively triable by a revenue court. I have, therefore, no hesitation it arriving at the conclusion that the plaintiffs' suit was properly triable by the Munsiff, and that he acted erroneously in sending it on to the Sub-Divisional Officer for trial under section 6 (3) of the said Act. In the result, I accept this reference and set aside the proceedings taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner on and after the 31st January, 1951, and direct the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dungarpur, to transfer the case to the court of the Civil Judge, Dungarpur for proceeding with the case according to law. .;