- (1.) THIS is a reference by Shri Madanlal Baweja, Assistant Collector, Behror, by order dated 13th August, 1955, in suit No. 25 of 1955, pending in his court. The suit was originally filed in the court of Civil Judge, Alwar, on 21st July, 1950, but it was returned to be presented to a revenue court by order of the Civil, Judge, and it was presented in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Behror on 24th November, 1952. The learned Assistant Collector has made a reference that in his opinion the suit is triable by a civil court.
(2.) THE allegations and the relief claimed in the suit are that a certain Haqiyat was in the name of Mst. Phuli, defendant No. 1, widow of Ram Swaroop. She contracted a second marriage with Sultan defendant No. 2, and according to the Wajib-ul-arz lost her right in her former husband's property. THEn it was alleged that certain collusive proceedings took place between Phuli and Sultan, whereby Sultan purported to obtain occupancy rights in land Khasra No. 14, measuring 28 bighas 11 biswas. THE prayer was that the name of Mst. Phuli as owner of Haqiyat in a certain Khewat be expunged the order of the S. D. O. Behror, dated 22nd October, 1948, and the subsequent order dated 25th March, 1949, conferring occupancy rights in a certain land be set aside, and the plaintiffs be further given a decree for possession of the Khewat held by Mst. Phuli. At the time when the suit was before the learned Assistant Collector, the Rajas-than Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act was in force. The provisions of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act have now been included in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The learned Civil Judge had perhaps in his mind item 10 of Schedule I, Group B, when he held that the suit was one triable by a revenue court. This item is now item No. 23 of Schedule III, of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The learned Assistant Collector is right in saying that this item is not applicable to a suit of the nature referred to above. "trespasser" has been defined in the Tenancy Act as a person who takes or retains possession of unoccupied land without authority or who prevents another person from occupying land duly let out to him. The definition is not applicable to the defendants on the allegations which have been mentioned above. What the plaintiffs want in the present case is a declaration that Mst. Phuli lost her rights in the Biswedari on her re-marriage,and for that reason they were entitled to obtain possession of the estate which had come to Mst. Phuli from her husband. The suit is purely of a civil nature, and is triable by a civil court. I do not find any item in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, which may make a suit of this nature triable by a revenue court. I, therefore, in exercise of the powers under sec. 243 (4) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, direct the learned Assistant Collector, Behror, to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for presentation to such civil court as may be competent to try the suit. .;