Dave, J. - (1.) THIS reference has been made by the Civil Judge, Pali, under sec. 40 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are that one Shivdan Singh Jagirdar of Kherwa filed a suit for the recovery of mapa lag in a revenue court i. e. in the court of the Tehsildar, Pali. THE plaint was returned by that court with an endorsement that it was not triable by a revenue court. THE plaintiff thereupon presented his claim in the court of the Civil Judge Pali. THE learned Civil Judge is of opinion that the suit is exclusively triable by a revenue court and that the plaint should not have been returned by the Tehsildar. THEre being a conflict of opinion about the jurisdiction between a revenue court and a civil court, the Civil Judge has referred the matter to this Court. The defendant, who had raised an objection about the jurisdiction of the civil court, has not cared to come here. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contests the correctness of the reference and learned Deputy Government Advocate also supports him. It appears from the order of the learned Civil Judge, Pali, that he considered this case to be exclusively triable by a revenue court because in his opinion mapa lag is a sort of rent. Learned Judge has, however, not given any reason why he considers mapa lag in the nature of rent. It may be mentioned that the term "rent" was defined in the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, as follows - "rent" means whatever is, in case or in kind, or partly in case and partly in kind, payable on account of the use or occupation of land and includes Sayar. " It is clear from this definition that unless something in case or in kind is payable on account of the use or occupation of land or unless it is Sayar, it cannot come within the purview of the term "rent". In the present case, the plaintiff has mentioned in the plaint itself that mapa lag was a tax which was leviable from people residing outside the village on the sale of grain to them within the boundaries of the village. The plaintiff claimed this lag from the defendant because he was jagirdar of the village and the defendant had according to him, made certain purchases within the boundaries of the village Kherwa. It was very clear from the plaint itself that the plaintiff was not claiming anything from the defendant on account of the use or occupation of land or on account of Sayar. This is not, therefore, a claim for rent and the learned Civil Judge was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff's claim was for realising a sort of rent. The reference is, therefore, rejected. The case be sent back to the learned Civil Judge for proceeding according to law in the matter in the light of the above observation. . ;