KAN SINGH, J.

( 1 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner raised two points to start with-

(1) that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff respondent was not sufficient. (2) that the trial Court was in error in holding that the suit was triable by it and therefore, it was not necessary to return the plaint.

( 2 ) IN the light of Sri Rathnavarmaraja v. Smt. Vimla, AIR 1961 SC 1299, learned counsel very rightly did not press the first point.

( 3 ) REGARDING the second point he submitted that as the plaintiff had sought a declaration for his being a khatedari tenant of the land the suit was not cognisable by a civil Court and could be tried only by a revenue Court according to the provisions of Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. He referred me to the analogous provisions in the Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 which governed the procedure for suits triable by revenue Courts before the rajasthan Tenancy Act came to be passed. Learned counsel pointed out that section 7 of the Act, was in pan materia with the provisions of Section 207 of the rajasthan Tenancy Act. He drew my attention to two cases (1) Gulla v. Doliya, 1953 Raj LW 332 and (2) Hamirsin