- (1.) THIS is a reference by the learned Assistant Collector, Tijara under section 40 sub-section 2 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act. Jhuntaram & Nathia instituted a suit in a court of Civil Judge, Alwar on the 3rd of September 1951 against Mangtu, Sukhdeo and Mansingh on the allegations that the plaintiffs were co-sharers with the defendants in land in Khasra Nos 49 and 43 covering an area of 14 Bighas and 3 Biss was in village Bhojpura, Tehsil Manda-war. It was alleged that the plaintiffs had been dispossessed by the defendants which led the plaintiff's so institute a suit for possession and to obtain a decree on the 30th of June, 1950 and in execution whereof, the plaintiffs got possession of their land on the 26th of June, 1950. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 2200/- on account of the loss which they sustained during the period of their dispossession for four harvests from the defendants. The learned Civil Judge returned the plaint for presentation in a revenue court on the 3rd of May, 1952 and it was presented before the Assistant Collector on the 8th of July, 1952. The learned Assistant Collector was of opinion that the suit did not come within any of the items mentioned in the First Schedule, and recorded an opinion that the suit was not triable by revenue court and has made this reference.
(2.) THE suit has been framed as for compensation for being kept out of possession and the nearest approach to a suit of this nature would be Item No. 12 of Group B of the First Schdl. THE language of that item is as follows; "for recovery of possession by a person who has been wrongly ejected or for compensation or for both. " THE period of limitation prescribed is three years and the time from which the period begins to run is mentioned when the wrongful dispossession takes place. The learned Assistant Collector has taken a correct view that the word "compensation" appearing in item No. 12 refers to any damage that my be caused at the time of taking wrongful possession This is indicated by the provision as to the time from which the limitation starts. In the case of the suit instituted, the cause of action did not arise at the time of wrongful dispossession but at the time when the plaintiffs were kept out of possession. The suit is not covered by any of the items in the First Schedule and is obviously for recovery of mesne profits. We agree with the learned Assistant Collector that the suit is one which is not triable in a revenue court and it should be tried in civil court. It is, therefore, declared that the suit is triable by a civil court. The plaint shall be returned by the Assistant Collector for presentation before the civil court. No order as to costs. .;