- (1.) THIS is a reference by the Civil Judge, Churu, under sec. 40 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act (No. 1) of 1951 (herein after referred to as the Revenue Courts Act (and has arisen under the following circumstances.
(2.) THE plaintiff Hiragir is the bhogta or Jagirdar of half Kanasi, Tehsil Rajgarh, and the defendants are the residents or asamis of that village. THE plaint iff is case was that in Khasra No. 24 measuring 29 odd bighas, there is a tank and its catchment area on which a number of trees are growing. He alleged that the defendants possessed a right to graze or water their cattle therein but had no right whatsoever to cut the trees or to take away their produce such as "long" etc. He further alleged that the defendants had, however, taken away the produce of the trees in question in Svt. 2006 and Svt. 2007 without any right to do so and thereby caused a loss to the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 200/ -. He eventually prayed that a decree the awarded in his favour for a sum of Rs. 200/- as price of the "long" and other produce taken away by the defendants from the land in question. THE plaintiff filed his suit on the 17th July, 1951, in the court of the Assistant Collector. Rajgarh. THE latter, however, was of the view that a revenue court had on jurisdiction to entertain such a suit and no that view he transferred the case to the court of the Munsif, Churu. I may state in passing that this was wrong because if the Assistant Collector was of the opinion that he had no jurisdiction to enter in the suit, which had been filed after the Revenue Courts Act had come into force, the proper procedure for him was to have returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court. He had no power to direct the transfer of the suit to a civil court himself. As the Munsiff's court was in abeyance at Churu at the time, the case came before the Civil Judge. THE Civil Judge in his turned was of the opinion that the suit was of a revenue nature and he had no jurisdiction to, take cognizance of it and he, therefore, returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court. Here again, I should like to say that in the circumstances of this case, the Civil Judge should have been better advised to have made a reference to this Court under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 40 instead of returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court which course, as will appear presently, led to further complications. THE plaintiff then presented his plaint in the court of the Assistant Collector again. THE Assistant Collector was still of the opinion that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and he referred the matter to the Collector. Strangely enough, the Collector also directed the Assistant Collector to return the case to the civil court. THE result was that the matter once again went to the Civil Judge and he has now made the present reference. The learned Civil Judge is of the opinion that the plaintiff's suit is covered either by serial No. 28, Group B of the First Schedule to the Revenue Courts Act, or by serial No. 2 of Group E thereof. These two serials read as under: - Group B - Suits triable by an Assistant Collector. 28. For any dispute over common grazing ground. Group E - Applications triable by a Tehsildar. 2. For settlement of dispute over the ownership of trees. I concur in this view. The principle is well established that in order to decide the question of jurisdiction, the court must look fairly and squarely at the proceeding for relief filed by the person who brings the matter to the court. Then sec. 7 of she Revenue Courts Act clearly lays down that if a suit or application is of the nature specified in the first and second Schedules to the said Act, it shall be heard and determined by a revenue court, and it is further laid down in sub-sec. (2) thereof that no court other than a revenue court shall take cognisance of any such suit or application. The explanation to sec. 7 further provides 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. Bearing all this in mind, it seems to me to be perfectly clear that the dispute in the present case really is as regards the rights of the parties over the common grazing ground in the village. The plaintiff's contention is that although the defendants have a right to graze their cattle thereon, they have no right whatever to take away the produce of the trees growing therein. Such a dispute is clearly covered by serial No. 28 which has been cited above. I may further point out that a reference to serial No. 2 of Group E also takes us to the same conclusion. Granting that the dispute in the present case, relates to the ownership of trees, the settlement of such a dispute would clearly fall within that serial. It is the settled view of this Court that the circumstance that this group contemplates an application for the decision of a dispute of this kind, does not and cannot alter the question of jurisdiction. (See Kishna vs. Hema 1955 RLW 180 ). It seems to me that the revenue courts who have dealt with the case heretofore were influenced in the decision to which they came by the outward form of the plaint, as the present suit seems to have been taken to be one for mere damages. As already pointed out by me in similar other cases, one must look at the real substance of the plaint and not at its outward form. Besides, the explanation to sec. 7, properly understood, puts the matter beyond any doubt that where the substantial relief asked for may be granted by the revenue court, the mere fact that some additional or other relief is being claimed would not take the case out of its jurisdiction and would not given any jurisdiction to the civil courts to decide such a matter. The result is that I hereby accept this reference and declare that the case is exclusively of a revenue character, and I further direct in the circumstances of the case that the case will go back to the Civil Judge, Churu, who will transfer it to the competent revenue court concerned for being tried and disposed of according to law. I would pass no order as to costs in this Court. .;