Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision against an order of the learned District Judge, Jaipur District. , dated 12th February, 1953, confirming the order of the learned Munsif dated 25th October, 1952, by which he directed return of the plaint to the petitioner for presenting to a revenue court.
(2.) THE petitioner instituted a suit in the court of Munsif, Jaipur District, on the allegation that he had two trees standing on his land, of which he was a muafidar, and the defendant Hinglazdan wrongfully cut the trees and sold them to one Bhura. It was alleged that petitioner prosecuted Hinglazdan and got him convicted under sec. 379, I. P. C. , and a sentence of fine was awarded. THE plaintiff claimed Rs. 101 /- as compensation for the damage done to his trees. THE plaintiff also impleaded Bhura, who was the purchaser of the timber from defendant No. 1. Bhura's plea was that he had purchased the wood bonafide from Hinglazdan, and had paid the price thereof to him. Hinglazdan pleaded that he was a co-owner of the trees, and was, therefore, entitled to cut and sell the trees. It was alleged that after the trees had been cut, certain compromise had been arrived at between the parties, and the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. An application was made on behalf of the defendant that the suit was not triable by a civil court. THE learned Munsif by reference to the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act held that the dispute was one relating to the ownership of the trees for which a provision has been made in Group E, item 2, of the First Schedule, and as such was triable by a Tehsildar. He referred to sec. 7 of the Act, and held that a claim, which was triable by a revenue court, was not entertainable by a civil court. He accordingly directed return of the plaint to the plaintiff. THE plaintiff filed an appeal, but the same judgment was upheld. In my opinion, the view taken by the two courts is not sound. The present suit is one for damages for having cut certain trees of the plaintiff. That relief is not available by revenue court. The nature of the dispute mentioned as triable by a Tehsildar in item 2, Group E. of the First Schedule is "an application for settlement of dispute over the ownership of trees". The trees are now non-existent, and, therefore, a suit for compensation for the trees, which had been cut, is not covered by item 2 of Group E. There is no provision in the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, except in the case of disputed right of tenancy, that a preliminary matter may be decided by a revenue court and the consequential or further progress of the suit may be undertaken in a civil court. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that even if the trees had been cut, there was a dispute about their ownership, and after the decision by the Tehsildar the plaintiff could go to a civil court. In the first place, as stated above, the trees are non-existent. But there may be further difficulties that may face the plaintiff, for there would arise the bar of limitation, if the decision of the dispute by the Tehsildar is prolonged beyond the period of limitation for a suit for damages. Learned counsel for the respondent referred to sec. 85 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which authorised the Tehsildar to decide a dispute regarding not only the ownership of the trees, but also as to the right to remove a tree. As stated above the trees are now non-existent. Learned counsel for the applicant urged that the forum of jurisdiction should be decided according to the allegations in the plaint. This is only partially, correct, for a court is entitled to go into the allegations of the parties in order to come to a conclusion what the real nature of the suit is. In the present case, however, there is only the allegation of the defendant that he is a co-sharer. The plaintiff, however, does not admit that position, but calls the defendant a thief and trespasser. In the circumstances, unless the defendant's plea of being a co-sharer is accepted, there is no ground whatsoever for the application of any of the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act or the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. In my opinion the conclusion arrived at by the two courts is not correct on the allegations made in the plaint and in view of the non-existence of trees, the case is triable by a civil court. The revision is, therefore, allowed, the order of the learned Munsif, Jaipur District, dated 25. 10. 52, and of the District Judge, Jaipur District, dated 12. 2. 53, are set aside, and the case is sent back to the Court of Munsif, Jaipur District, the original court, for further proceeding according to law. The respondent will pay costs of this court and of the lower appellate court. The costs of the first court will abide the result of the suit. .;