- (1.) THIS is a revision application under sec. 26 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act,1951against an appellate order of the Divisional Commissioner Kotah, dated 11-5-54 upholding the appellate order of the Collector, Kotah which in turn upheld the original order of the Assistant Collector in a case relating to redemption of the land in dispute.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as well. The facts of the case have been set out at length in the order of the learned Commissioner and need not be repeated here. The only ground on which the validity of the lower court's order has been challenged before us is that the application for redemption of land should have been treated as being one under sec. 8 of the Transfer of Property Act and that the procedure followed in the case is entirely different from that laid down in secs. 62and 63 of the Revenue Circular No. 3 of the former Kotah State. It has been replied on behalf of the opposite party that the procedure prescribed by the former Kotah State circular stands abrogated by sec. 2 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 and that Item 5, Group D, Schedule I of the Act authorises an S. D. O. to entertain an application of this nature. The applicant's counsel has relied upon an unreported decision of the Rajasthan High Court dated 30th July, 1953 Civil Reference No. 118 of 1952, Ranglal vs. Kanhiyalal. In that case a reference was made by the learned Munsiff of Mangrol under Rule 40 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. The plaintiff in that case filed suit for redemption of mortgage and no objection was raised that the court of Munsiff had no jurisdiction to try the same as item 5, Group B, Schedule I of the lays down that an application by mortgage for redemption of land and redelivery of possession is entertainable by an S. D. O. The learned Judges were pleased to observe that the Schedule did not contain any provision for the Revenue Courts to hear a suit for redemption and that the application mentioned in Group D is obviously one which is referred to in sec. 83 of the Transfer of Property Act. The two remedies are quite separate and independent of each other. The court of Munsiff was therefore held competent to try the suit. As against this the opposite party has cited 1955 RLW 380 (Kishna vs. Hernia), a Division Bench case decided on 25-3-54. The previous case law on the point was examined in its entirety by their lordships who, where pleased to observe that the case of Hira vs. Kan-hiyalal was not correctly decided and that the correct view is that such a suit is exclusively triable by a revenue court and the jurisdiction of the civil court to try such a suit is barred by sub-sec. (1) and (2) or sec. 7 read with sec. 6 (3) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1. 951. ¦ The question that came up for consideration in that case was as to whether a suit for redemption of agricultural land was cognizable by the civil courts or was one which fell within sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 and was therefore exclusively triable by a revenue court. ' The reasons that weighed with their lordships, while giving the decision quoted above, may be reproduced from the judgment as below: - "it is admitted before us that if such a suit was filed after the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act came into force, it would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue courts in view of the First Schedule, Group D, Serial No. 5 of the said Act. It is also admitted and in our opinion quite rightly, by learned counsel for the opposite parties that the subject matter of such a proceeding would be exclusively triable by the revenue courts regardless of the consideration that the party seeking the relief filed a suit instead of an application. The simple reason is that the court must look at the substance of the matter and not merely at its outward form; and if such a suit happens to be filed in a civil court after the coming into force of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act, the civil court cannot take cognizance of it on account of sub-sec. (l) and (2) of sec. 7 and must return it for presentation to the proper court. The relevant portion of sec. 7 is the following terms: - "7 (1) All suits and applications of the nature specified in the first and second schedules shall be heard and determined by a revenue court. (2) No court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application, of any suit or application base on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such or application. (3) Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 7 lays emphasis not on the form of the proceeding which may be a suit or application butt on the cause of action with respect of which relief is claimed. If such a cause of auction is covered by the first or the second schedule of the Act, then it can be heard and determined only by a revenue court and the jurisdiction of a civil court must be held to be barred. " "the matter of redemption of agricultural land by a mortgagor falls within the four corners of S. N. 5 of Group D of the first schedule and that group is headed as "applications triable by a Sub-Divisional Officer. " The argument that this group deals with applications only and not with suits and, therefore,pending suits would not be covered by sec. 6 (3) is bereft of any • force whatever because if that argument were allowed to prevail then the jurisdiction of the court would be made to depend on merely how the suit or may choose to call his action for relief. If he calls it'application', the matter would fall within the exclusive purview of the revenue courts, but if instead he calls it a 'suit' he would be able to evade the jurisdiction of the revenue courts and seek his relief in the civil courts. Such an interpretation, if adopted, must lead to the defeat of the intent and purpose of the Rajasthan Revenue Court Act. and cannot be allowed. " In view of this latest clear authority it becomes perfectly clear that the lower court was competent to entertain the application and the contention of the applicant's counsel should fail. As regards the procedure contained in secs. 62 and 63 of Circular No. 3 of the former Kotah State, much need not be said on the point. The procedure laid down in the Rajasthan Revenue Court Act shall prevail. The revision is therefore without any force any is hereby rejected. . ;