- (1.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that Bhanwarlal and Ram Vilas plaintiffs filed a suit against Shri Uttam Chand and Shri Champa Lal under Sec. 91, 92-A, 188, 248 and 78 of the Tenancy Act for declaration and permanent injunction with the allegation that they were entitled to 1/3 of share in the water of the disputed well while the defendants were entitled to 2/3 of the share. It is alleged that the two parties entered into an agreement to install an electric motor pump in the well and to bear the installation and the running cost in the proportion of 1 : 2. It is further alleged that while the motor pump has been installed by the defendants, they are not now prepared to associate the plaintiffs with the use of the same, and that they are using the motor pump exclusively. It is averred that the motor pump sucks out in an hour as much quantity of water as. was brought out by the three Dhanas formerly.
(2.) THE following reliefs have therefore been sought: (1) To declare that the installation of the motor pump is an improvement in terms of Sec. 5 (19) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and that the two parties own it in the proportion of 1:2. (2) To declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to extract water for one day and the defendants are entitled to extract water for two days and that they should share the cost of the pump in the same proportion. (3) To declare that the two parties are entitled to extract water through the motor pump in the proportion of 1:2. (4) To direct the defendants by permanent injunction to extract water in the manner sought in 1,2, 3 above and not to prohibit the plaintiffs from extracting the water through the motor pump as agreed to between the two parties. (5) To settle the accounts of the motor pump between the parties. (6) To impose the cost of the suit on the defendants. During the course of the trial, an application under Sec. 212 was filed by the plaintiffs for temporary injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from taking water in excess of their share. After hearing the parties, the trial court ordered the defendants not to use the motor pump. THE defendants filed an appeal against this order before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, who taking into consideration the quantum of the discharge of water by the pump ordered that the defendants be allowed to extract water from the well with the aid of the pump for 45 minutes per day, for two days out of three days, till the case was finally decided. Both the parties have come up in revision against this order. THE contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is that the learned Revenue Appellate Authority has erred in law in not maintaining the status quo and further that the execution of the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority is not practicable. THE contention of the learned counsel for the defendants is that the order or the Revenue Appellate Authority is likely to create constant bickering between the two parties. It is also contended that the suit is not maintainable in a revenue court. It is further urged that no injunction can be granted against a co-tenant. As regards the revision petition filed by the plaintiffs, it may be stated that they have not made out any ground in terms of sec. 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The revisional powers of the Board can be exercised if a subordinate court appears to have exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law or if it fails to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or if it acts in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The Board has no power to interfere in revision under this section except in the three cases mentioned above. In the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the Board has only to see whether the requirements of the law have been duly and properly fulfilled or not. If it finds that the external conditions of jurisdiction have been satisfied by the lower courts it is not expected to substitute its own appreciation of evidence or its own judgment with regards to a matter lying within the discretion of the inferior court. Under the circumstances, I see no force in the revision petition filed by the plaintiffs and hereby reject the same. There appears to be no substance in the argument that the order of the lower court is unexecutable. After all, with the advance in technology, motor pumps will gradually replace the traditional methods of extracting water and it would be tantamount to putting the clock of progress backwards, if the modern methods of farming and irrigation are discouraged by the fiats of the courts. It may also be noted that the impugned order is of a temporary nature and will run till the decision of the case. As stated above, I will not like to enter into the merits of the order. So far as it leads to an equitable distribution of the water in the well between the two contesting parties, there can be no quarrel about it. As regards the revision petition filed by the defendants, the above remarks apply with equal rigour to their contention that the impugned order is likely to create constant bikerings and that the same is not executable. As regards their contention that the case is not maintainable in a revenue court, a reference may be to sec. 207 (2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which lays down that no court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or applications based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any suit or application covered by sub-sec. (1 ). It is stated in the explanation annexed thereto that if the cause of action is one in respect of which relief might be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court is greater than, or additional to, or is not identical with that which the revenue court could have granted. The main relief sought for in this suit is the enjoyment of the share of water belonging to the plaintiffs which is certainly a matter falling within jurisdiction of the revenue court. All other reliefs are ancillary. I have, therefore, no doubt that the case falls within the jurisdiction of a revenue court. Similarly, with regard to the contention that no such relief can be sought against a co-tenant, I am of the opinion that this is without foundation. In this case the share of the two parties in the well stands properly determined and if the exclusive right of a co-tenant is invaded by another co-tenant, the aggrieved party can certainly maintain a suit for the declaration of its rights and consequential reliefs. In the result, therefore, I find that there is no substance in the revision application filed by the defendants as well and the same is, therefore, hereby rejected. The case will now go to the trial court for proceeding in accordance with the law. .;