- (1.) THIS is a reference by the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur in a case for redemption of mortgage. The point referred to is whether a case for redemption of mortgage is triable by a revenue court or civil court.
(2.) ON a reference made to the High Court by the S. D. O. Nimba-hera, it was held by Mr. Justice Nawal Kishore that the suit for possession of land by redemption of mortgage was of civil nature and was, therefore, triable by a civil court. As against this, Mr. Justice Sharma of the Jaipur Bench has decided in Civil Reference No. 223 of 1951 Shrichand vs. Daulatram (1952 RLW 495) that in cases in which relief claimed is the redemption of mortgage and re-delivery of property, the revenue courts alone have jurisdiction and such cases are not triable by a civil court. Justice Sharma has examined the provisions of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 and has come to the above conclusion with which we are in respectful agreement. Under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, all suits and applications of the nature specified in the First and Second Schedule are to be heard and determined by a revenue court, and no court other than a revenue court can take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be claimed by means of any such suit or application. In the explanation it has been made clear that if the cause of action is one in respect of 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. Under Schedule I, Group D, Item No. 5 an application for redemption of land and re-delivery of possession is made triable by a S. D. O. Therefore, sec. 7 bars cognizance of such cases by courts other than revenue courts. It is true that under sec. 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, the mortgagor can only deposit the amount of mortgage which is not in dispute and then can recover possession of the mortgaged property through the court. If the fact of the mortgage or the amount of mortgage is disputed the mortgagor has to file a suit for redemption. We think, however, that in the case of mortgage of agricultural tenancies, the summary remedy has provided redemption by means of an application. In Jaipur Tenancy Act, under sec. 12 (c) it is provided that a mortgagor may redeem the land at any time during the currency of the mortgage on payment of the mortgage debt or in the case of a mortgage in form (ii) and (iii) of such proportion of the mortgage debt as the Nazim determines to be equitable. Thus we find that even in case of dispute about the mortgage debt, a Nazim was empowered to determine the amount. Therefore, we are of the opinion that cases for redemption of mortgage of agricultural tenancies are triable by the revenue courts. References answered accordingly. . ;