Modi, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference by the Assistant Collector, Pali, under sec. 40 (1) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdictions Act, (No. 1) of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Rajasthan Act ).
(2.) THE facts out of which the present reference has arisen may shortly be stated as follows. THE plaintiff is one Lakshman Puri who calls himself a chela of Manshapuri a math-holder in village Digai Tehsil Bali. THE case of the plaintiff is that his guru Manshapuri died some time in Svt. 1966. After twelve days of his death, it is alleged that the plaintiff was installed as a chela of the deceased Manshapuri. As the plaintiff was a minor then, Genpuri, chela of Dhanipuri and Moti-puri chela of Surajpuri used to look after the property of the math on behalf of the plaintiff. Genpuri died in Svt. 1971-72 and thereafter Motipuri continued to look after the estate. Motipuri also died in Svt. 1979. It is further alleged that the plaintiff held certain agricultural land in village Digai. This land consisted of 33 fields. Village Digai was formerly in the patta of thikana Khod but was subsequently granted to thikana Pal. THE plaintiff goes on to say that after Motipuri's death in Svt. 1979 the thakur of Pal installed the defendant Motipuri, son of Gulabpuri, as mahant, and the latter took over possession of the fields above referred to as also a house and a nohra situate in the abadi of the village Digai. It appears that this Motipuri was set up as a chela of Genpuri but the plaintiff's allegation is that Genpuri himself was a junior member and, therefore, no question arose of appointing any separate chela or successor to the said Genpuri. THE plaintiff's case in short is that he was the lawful heir and successor to the deceased Genpuri and Motipuri both and, therefore, the possession of defendant No. 1 Motipuri and of his sons who are defendants Nos. 2 to 5 was entirely unlawful. THE plaintiff on the allegation made above prayed for possession of the 33 fields as well as the house and the nohra in Digai and he also claimed mesne profits from the date of suit to the date of decree. THE plaintiff filed this suit in the court of the Hakim Bali, on the 27th July, 1944. As a result of the re-organization of courts in the former State of Jodhpur. it was transferred to the court of the Civil Judge, Bali, and was being tried by him when the Rajasthan Act came into force on the 31st January, 1951. THE Civil Judge entertained the view that the suit was of a character which was exclusively triable by a revenue court and under sec. 6 (3) of the Rajasthan Act,he transferred it to the court of the Assistant Collector who has made the present reference under sec. 40 of the said Act. The question to determine in these circumstances is whether this suit as filed by the plaintiff falls within sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Act. If it does, than under sec. 6 (3) of the said Act, it would be exclusively triable by a revenue court, and the civil courts would have no jurisdiction to try it. In order to see whether the suit falls within sec. 7, one must look at the First and Second Schedules of the Rajasthan Act, which contain a list of all suits and applications which are exclusively triable by a revenue court. The only serial of the First Schedule which may seem to apply to the present case is No. 10 thereof. On a careful consideration, however, I am clearly of opinion that this serial has no application to the present case. Serial No. 10 is in these terms: "for the ejectment of a trespasser, taking possession of land without lawful authority. " The expression "land" in this serial means agricultural land according to the definition of the word "land" given in (X) of sec. 4 of the Rajasthan Act. It is crystal clear, however, that the present suit includes land which is not merely agricultural but also residential. It follows, therefore, that the present suit cannot be held to fall within the four corners of this serial only. It also appears to me that the real question involved in the present litigation is one of title to the land in dispute. It must also be remembered that the true principle is that the jurisdiction of the civil courts must prevail unless it has been clearly taken away by law. In these circumstances I hold that the present suit cannot be said to be of a character which is exclusively triable by the revenue courts, and, therefore, the civil courts are perfectly competent to take cognizance of it and try it. For the reasons mentioned above, I hereby direct that the Assistant Collector will transfer the case to the Civil Judge, Pali, who will proceed to try the case according to law. There will be no order as to costs in this Court .;