Dave, J. - (1.) THIS case comes on reference under sec. 40 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 (Act No 1 of 1951 ).
(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are that on the 3rd of October, 1953, one Dhanna Jat, resident of Dhadhar, Tehsil Churu, filed a suit in the court of the Munsif, Churu, for possession of certain agricultural plots mentioned in the plaint. It was averred by him that on the 12th of April, 1950 the defendant Harisingh entered with him into an agreement that on 16th of May, 1950 or before that date he would lease out to him Ujir-khanwala filed measuring 100 bighas and that if for any reason, it would not be possible for him to hand over possession of that filed, he would give him Dherwala field measuring 75 bighas for cultivation. It was alleged that the defendant failed to keep his promise and, therefore, it was prayed that he should be ordered to give to the plaintiff possession either over Ujirkhanwala field or Dehrwala field. The Munsiff, who tried this case later on though that it was exclusively triable by a revenue court and so he sent the case to the Assistant Collector, Rajgarh. The Assistant Collector completed the trial and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff thereupon filed an appeal. The Commissioner Bikaner Division who heard the appeal realised that the case was not triable by the revenue court but by a civil court since it was a suit for specific performance of an agreement. He, therefore, allowed the appeal. A conflict of jurisdiction between civil and revenue courts having thus arisen the matter has been referred to this Court. Learned counsel for plaintiff supports the reference while learned Advocate for the respondent says that the suit was rightly tried by the revenue court because it is exclusively triable by revenue courts under the provisions of sec. 7 First Schedule, Group B, item No. 1 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. The said item runs as follows: - 1. For lease or counter part of a lease or for any matter arising out of a lease, between the tenant and the landholder. The language is no doubt ambiguous and creates some difficulty. But it appears that the suit for lease or counterpart of a lease can only mean a suit for execution of a lease (deed) by the landlord or a counterpart of the lease by the tenant. If, in any case, possession of the land is already given by the landlord to the tenant and the tenant wants that the landlord should execute a lease deed in his favour or if the landlord wants that a counterpart of the lease should be executed by the tenant and if any of them wants to bring a suit for that purpose, it may be covered by this provision, or if any matter arises out of a lease, i. e. a present demise between the tenant and the landlord, then also such suit may be covered by this item. But in a case like the present one, where there is no present demise but only an agreement between the parties that at a future date a certain land would be given to the tenant by the landholder, then it is only a suit for specific performance of an agreement and, in my opinion, it is not covered by this item. The reference is, therefore accepted, the case is sent back to the revenue court with direction to transfer the case to the competent civil court concerned. .;