JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by the defendant against an order of the Civil Judge, Merta, holding that he has jurisdiction to try the present suit.
(2.) THE plaintiff brought the suit against the defendants for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2250/- as damages on the allegation that they deliberately got grass in his field Khasra No. 3 grazed by their cattle out of malice. THE suit was instituted in the court of Civil Judge, Merta, who overruled an objection by the defendants that the revenue court has jurisdiction to try the suit and not the civil court. The contention on behalf of the defendants before me is that sec. 187 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act governs the suit. This section runs as follows - "remedies for wrongful ejection - (1) Any tenant ejected from or prevented from obtaining possession of his holding or any part thereof otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force, may sue the person so ejecting him or keeping him out of possession for all or any of the following reliefs, namely - (i) for possession of the holding; (ii) for compensation for wrongful ejectment or dispossession; (iii) for compensation for any improvement he may have made; Provided that no decree for possession shall be passed where the plaintiff at the time of the passing of the decree, is liable to ejectment in accordance with the provisions of this Act within the current agricultural year. " Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Rajkumar Rajendra Singh vs. Ganga Bishan (l ). In that case the plaintiff had filed a suit in the civil court. It was alleged that the defendants wrongfully prevented him from cultivating his fields in 1952-53 and thereby caused a loss of Rs. 14000/- to him. The suit was instituted for the recovery of Rs. 7000/- from the defendants as damages. It was held that the suit was governed by sec. 187 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and am satisfied that the above case is distinguishable. In that case damages were claimed for loss on account of dispossession. The plaintiff in that case was prevented from obtaining possession of bis holding and was thereby prevented from cultivating his fields. The loss which he claimed was occasioned on account of his being prevented from cultivating the land. In the present case according to the allegation made in the plaint the real object of the defendants was not to dispossess the plaintiff from the field, but it was to forcibly get the grass grazed by their cattle out of malice. The grievance of the plaintiff in the present case is not that he was dispossessed or he was prevented from cultivating his field. No loss was occasioned to him on account of being prevented from remaining in possession of his field during the time the defendants grazed their cattle on it by force. The loss was caused by the defendants by misappropriating the grass belonging to the plaintiff which was growing on the land. There is no provision in the Tenancy Act for recovering damages for such an act of the defendants. My attention was drawn to sec. 183 of the Tenancy Act. Under that section damages occasioned to the plaintiff being prevented from cultivating his field can be claimed and not damages for the wrongfully taking away by the defendants of the crop of the plaintiff growing on the land. I accordingly hold that the present suit is not tiable by the revenue court, but is triable by the civil court. The revision application is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of it. . ;