- (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by defendant against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner Jaipur, dated 31. 1. 57, reversing the original order of the Sub-Divisionl Officer, Amber, dated 4. 7. 56 whereby respondents' suit for recovery of compensation and mesne profits was held triable by a Civil Court.
(2.) WE have heard the parties. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs had been in continuous possession of the land in dispute as tenants of a long standing that the defendant wrongfully dispossessed them on 20. 7. 52, that the plaintiffs sought reinstatement under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 and were successful, that the plaintiffs could get possession on even though 30. 6. 55 their request for reinstatement was decided in their favour on 12. 12. 54 and that the plaintiffs were, therefore, entitled to Rs. 4770/91 as mesne profits for six harvests and losses stained by them in conducting the case. This suit was instituted on 25. 8. 55 under Schedule I, Group B, Item 12 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. The defendant filed his written statement on 4. 1. 56 i. e. after the enforcement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act on 15. 9. 55. One of the pleas taken in the written statement was that the suit was not triable in a revenue court. The trial court held that Item 12. Group B of the 1st Schedule of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act provided for recovery of possession by a person who has been wrongly ejected or compensated or both, but as no such provision was laid down in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the suit could not be tried by a revenue court. The plaintiffs went up in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner who held that the revenue court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it was filed prior to the enforcement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. He accordingly allowed the appeal and remanded the suit for a trial. Hence this second appeal. It is evident that the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Additional Commissioner is erroneous as it goes against the express provisions of sec. 206 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Sub-sec. (1) of this section lays down that all suits, cases, appeals etc. pending before a revenue court on the coming into force of this Act shall be deemed to have commenced under this Act and shall be tired, heard and determined in the manner prescribed by or under this Act. Sub-sec. (2) lays down that any suits, cases, appeals etc. which, according to the provisions of this Act, are not triable by a revenue court but are pending before it shall be transferred to the revenue Court by which they are triable in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Sub-sec. (3) lays down that any suit or application which have been declared exclusively triable by a revenue court but are pending before a civil court shall be transferred by the civil court to the competent revenue court. Sub-sec. (4) provided that any suits, application etc. pending before a revenue court other than those referred to in see. 207 shall be transferred by such revenue court to the civil court having jurisdiction to try and determine the same. Thus the question hinges on this point whether the present suit comes within the purview of sec. 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act or not. It is provided in sec. 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act that all suits and applications of the nature specified in the III Schedule, shall be heard and determined by a revenue court. It is provided therein that no court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that only 2 items of the III schedule have some relation to the present suit items 23 and 69. Item 23 deals with suits for ejectment of trespassers under sec. 183 of the Act. Item No. 69 deals with an application for reinstatement under sec. 186 of the Act. Sec. 183 lays down that a trespasser if he has taken or retained possession of any land without lawful authority shall be liable to ejectment on the issue of a notice by the Tehsildar in case of land held directly from the State Government and in other cases on the suit of the person entiled to admit him as a tenant and shall also be liable to pay as penalty for each agricultural year during the whole or any part whereof he had been in such possession a sum which may extend to six time the annual rent. Similarly, sec. 187 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act provides that an Assistant Collector may, in addition to ordering reinstatement under sec. 186 of a tenant who has been wrongly ejected from his holding also award to such tenant reasonable compensation not exceeding four times the annual rent of the area from which he has so ejected. Both these provisions, therefore, provide for compensation along with reinstatement or ejectment of a trespasser. A separate suit for compensation and mesne profit is not contemplated in either of these sections. On behalf of the respondents, Bhawaniram vs. Seth Ram Narain (1955 RLW, 112) was cited before us to show that claim to compensation for keeping the plaintiffs out of the possession of an agricultural land includes a claim to mesne profits and is, therefore, triable by a revenue court. This case was decided by his Lordship of the Rajasthan High Court on 6. 1. 52. The only question raised before his Lordship related to an interpretation of Item 12, Group B, Schedule I of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. This item clearly provides for a suit for ejectmentor for compensation or for both. If this provision had been incorporated in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in the form in which it stood in the Rajasthan Revenue Court (Proce- (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. the matter would not have been capable for any other interpretation and a suit for compensation would have been triable by a revenue court. But this provision has not been incorporated in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. On the contrary, reference has been made in both the items pointed out above to sec. 183 and 186 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. These provisions, we have examined above and they do not provide for a suit for compensation alone. The provisions of sec. 207 of the Act also deserve a careful examination. It is clear from this section that a revenue court can take cognizance of a suit or application of the nature specified in the III Schedule as well as of a suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application. Items 23 and 69 of the III Schedule provide for ejectment of trespassers and reinstatement of the ejected person and hence any suit based on a cause of action on which these reliefs can be claimed will be triable by a revenue court. We have, therefore, to see whether the present suit is based on a cause of action in respect of which relief could have been claimed under sec. 183 or 186 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act or is based on a different one. In the present suit, the plaintiffs claimed compensation for the six harvests during which the defendant remained in wrongful possession after having wrongfully ejected the plaintiffs on 20. 7. 52. The expenditure to which the plaintiffs were put in conducting their case for reinstatement has also been made a basis of claim. It is, therefore, clear that the present suit is based on a different cause of action. In support of this view, we may refer to some decision of the High Courts. In AIR 1954 Orissa, 202 it was held that the claim for mesne profits which accrues from the date of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff to the date of institution of the suit for possession arises out of the same cause of action. But "it can hardly be said that the claim for mesne profits subsequent to the institution of the suit also arises before the suit was instituted. " It was further held in that case that a subsequent suit for future mesne profits was not barred either under sec. 11 or under 0. 2,r. 2 C. P. C. as the claim for future mesne profits arises subsequent to the suit for possession and not at the date when the suit was instituted. In AIR 1952 Patna 475; a similar view was also expressed by their Lordships of the Patna High Court. Where a decree for possession is silent as regards the mesne profits which had accrued between the date of the institution of the suit and the date of delivery of possession even though it had been claimed in the suit and an issue regarding it had been framed but no finding given, a second suit would lie for recovering such mesne profits and would not be barred by the provisions of sec. 11. In AIR 1938 Bombay 231; A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the relief referred to in the explanation V to sec. 11 C. P. C. means relief arising out of a cause of action accrued at the date of the institution of the suit, and such relief does not cover future mesne profits in respect of which the cause of action accrued subsequently to the suit. The provisions contained in sec. 183 (1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and sec. 180 (1) of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939 bear much resemblance as far as general principles are concerned In the U. P. Tenancy Act also the person occupying land without consent is held liable to ejectment and also to pay damages. While examining this provision of law Shri Aziz Uddin Ahmad, in his learned commentary (1950 edition, page 1043) has held that a suit for damages alone appears outside the scope of this section. The learned author has referred the same decision of the U. P. Board of Revenue wherein it was held that a suit for damages alone against the trespassers was maintainable under this section. This interpretation, if we may say so with due respects to the learned Members of the Board, is not justified by the letter of law which clearly lays down the intention of the law framers that damages ought to be awarded in addition to an order of ejectment as part of the relief in an ejectment suit. A suit for damages alone would thus be beyond the scops of this section. To conclude, therefore, we hold that the present suit being one for compensation for the period subsequent to wrongful dispossession for which re-instatement was claimed must be deemed to be a suit based on a cause of action not covered by sec. 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It is, therefore, beyond the cong-aizance of a revenue court. We, therefore, allow this appeal set aside the order of the lower appellate court and restore that of the trial court with the modification that the record of the case shall be transferred to the competent civil court under sec. 206 (4) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. .;