- (1.) THIS is a second appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for a so-called declaratory relief was decreed in part only by the trial court, the first appellate court confirming the same in appeal.
(2.) WE have heard the parties and have gone through the record as well. The first question that arises for determination in the case is as regards the jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiff is the Jagirdar of the land in dispute. His claim is that one-half of the land in dispute is in his actual cultivation that only the other half is in the possession of Balbha tenant and that Rugha has no claim whatsoever to any portion of the land. The plaint presented by him before the trial court after standing the material facts contains the following prayer: - "the plaintiff be granted a declaratory decree against the defendants to the effect that the defendants should not interfere with the plaintiff's possession which extends to one-half of the land in dispute. Besides a temporary injunction may also be issued against the defendants whereby they be restrained from making any interference with the plaintiff's possession during the pendency of the suit". The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued before us that the suit falls within sec. 51 of the Marwar Tenancy Act, 1959. This section runs as follows: - "the land-lord may sue any person claiming to be a tenant of a holding for a declaration of the right of such person. " A similar provision exists at item No. 14, Group B, Schedule I of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. If the relief claimed in the plaint had been that the tenants were claiming tenancy rights to which they were not entitled and had a declaration been sought for the extent of the defendants tenancy rights the suit would have certainly been covered by this item. In the present case we, however, find that no such declaration is sought. What in reality the plaintiff has sought is the grant of a permanent injunction against the defendants' restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. As such the suit is evidently beyond the cognizance of a revenue court. This is in accordance with the decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 1952 R. L. W. 248. As the lower courts had assumed jurisdiction which they did not possess, we allow this appeal, set aside the orders of the lower courts and direct that the plaint, after endorsing necessary particulars thereon, be returned to the plaintiff appellant for presentation to a competent court. .;