- (1.) THIS is a reference by the Rajasthan Board of Revenue.
(2.) THE facts leading to this reference may be briefly stated as follows - Chanda and 2 others filed a suit in the court of the Munsif, Bandikui, on the 2nd of June, 1951, against Gangadhar and 7 others for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from damaging the well of the plaintiffs or constructing a new one or in any manner interfering; with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of the said well with the allegations that the plaintiff were tenants of the land of Th. Amar Singh and that their ancestors constructed a well on their holding which was being used by them for irrigating 24 bighas of land -theirs and that the defendants were threatening to damage the well and to interfere with their right to irrigate their lands from the said well. THE learned Munsif on the 22nd August, 1951 returned the plaint for presentation to a proper court holding that the suit was not triable by a civil court. THE plaintiffs then presented the plaint in the court of the sub-Divisional Officer Dausa, who did not agree with the opinion of the learned munsif and held that the suit was not triable by a revenue court and was triable by a civil court. He referred the matter to the Rajasthan Board of Revenue and the learned Members of the Board agreeing with the view expressed by the Sub-Divisional Officer have referred the case to this court. THE learned Members of the Board have based their opinion on a decision of this court in Bhawani Shanker vs. Rup Shanker (1) in which the import of items Nos. 8 and 9 of Group B of Schedule I to the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act was considered and it was held that a suit which was not by a landholder against a tenant or sub-tenant did not come within the scope of item 9 and was not exclusively triable by a revenue court and was cognizable a civil court. It may be pointed out that similar view has been expressed in Havji vs. Bada (2) Lala vs. Sujan Singh (3 ). Mr. Kasliwal who has appeared for the plaintiffs has urged that the position of law has undergone a change in this behalf after the Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act of 1956 came into force and though the law before 15th of October 1956 was as explained by the learned Members of the Board of Revenue, yet on account of the change in the law the jurisdiction of the revenue courts has been enlarged and suits for perpetual injunction under sec. 92-A and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act have been made cognizable by revenue courts by addition of items Nos. 8 (a) and 23 (a) in Schedule III Part I to the Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Mr. Bhargava for the State has also supported the contention of the learned counsel. The suit of the plaintiffs in this case does not come within the scope of item 9 of Group B of Schedule I to the Rajasthan Revenue Courts procedure and Jurisdiction) Act or under item No. 22 of Schedule III Part I of the Act which corresponds to item No. 9 referred to above, and the opinion expressed by the learned Members of the Board is quite consistent with the decisions of this court with reference to the scope of item No. 9 of Group B of Schedule I to the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, After this reference was made the legislature introduced certain changes in the law and added sec. 92-A to the Act and a corresponding provision of items Nos. 8-A and 23-A, in schedule III which are as follows - S. No. Sec. of Act Description of suit, application or appeal Period of limita-tion Time for which period begins to run Proper court-fees Court/ officer competent to dis- pose of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 * * * * * * A 92-A Suit for injunction Three years When the cause of action arises Eight annas Asstt. Collector * * * * * * 23-A 188 Suit for perpetual injunction Three years When the cause of action arises Eight annas Asstt. Collectors * * * * * * The scope of sec. 92-A is much wider than the import of sec. 188 of the Act and a suit for perpetual injunction in respect of all or any of the rights conferred by the Act except otherwise specifically provided has been made cognizable by the Court of the Assistant Collector both by virtue of Sec. 92 A and Item No. 8-A and a suit under sec. 188 for perpetual injunction has also been made cognizable by that court by item No. 23-A. In the present case the plaintiff's are tenants and the well in respcct of which perpetual injunction is claimed by them is stated to be a part of their holding. The defendants are stated to be trespassers. Such a suit is covered by the language used in sec. 188 of the Act which provides that any tenant whose right to or enjoyment of the whole or a part of his holding is invaded or threatened to be invaded by his landholder or any other person may bring a suit for the grant of a perpetual injunction. Though sec. 188 appeared in the Act from the very beginning, yet no corresponding provision was made in Schedule III to the Act and suits under sec. 188 of the Act were therefore, not cognizable by the revenue courts, because those courts could only try the suits described in Schedule III as specified in sec. 207 of the Act. Now when Items Nos. 8-A and 23 A have been introduced in Schedule III to the Act, the jurisdiction of the revenue courts has become enlarged so as to make the suits for perpetual injunction under sec. 92-A and 188 of the Act exclusively cognizable by Revenue Courts. The present suit, being one under sec. 188, is now cognizable by a court of an Assistant Collector and though the position formerly was quite different yet we cannot overlook the change that has been introduced by the legislature by amendment of the Act in 1956. 5. The reference may be answered accordingly. .;