The substance of the relief claimed determines the jurisdiction of the court.

1. - A suit was instituted by the appellant Hardev & others. Hardev is now dead and his legal representatives have been substituted in his place the appeal is against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Dausa, dated 11-10-1984 by which it was directed that the plaint be returned for presentation before the competent Court viz. the Revenue court. Feeling against this decision he has preferred this appeal.

2. In order to understand as to which Court is empowered to try the suit, the plaint may be looked into. The plaintiffs and the defendants No. 1 to 10 and 15 to 31 arc of the same family, the ancester being Maya Ram. The fathers of the plaintiffs viz. Kushal and Shiv Bux were real brothers and were sons of Bheru. Bheru had two others sons viz. Shobha and Moti, who are dead. Their representatives are defendants. Defendant No. 1 is the elder brother of plaintiff Boru and with the permission of the plaintiff, he gave some land to defendant No, 4 for cultivation in the year 1978. Subsequently without informing the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 sold his undivided ⅓rd share by virtue of different sale-deeds to defendant No. 7 and defendants Nos. 11 to 50. Now the defendant No. 7 asserts that he had purchased the agricultural land from the father of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 and wanted to take possession over the land. Subsequently in the year 1982, the defendant No. I sold the remaining ⅔rd share in the agricultural land to some defendants and this the plaintiffs came to know only on 22-1-1983 when a revenue realisation camp was held in Gram Panchayat, Bhiva and the defendants moved an application for transfer of the land in their names. The prayer in the plaint is that the defendants be restrained from taking possession over the land in pursuance of the sale deeds, and the plaintiffs should not be dispossessed and that the land should not be transferred to any-body else and the sale-deeds be declared uuil and void. The prayer for the partition of the property has also been made and in the schedule, all the moveable and immovable property has been given in which the immovable property consists of agricultural land, while the moveable property consists of cattle, cart, pump-set and utensils along with Kacha houses.

3. The learned Addl. District Judge has on a consideration of various decisions of this Court held that when the main relief of the plaint is in respect of khatedari rights then the matter has to be heard and decided by revenue Courts and not by a Civil Court. The plea that the suit also relates to the partition of the properties was also considered and it was held that this was obviously included in order to make an attempt to confer jurisdiction upon Civil Court and it could not be said that the main relief in the suit is such which is triable by the Civil Courts.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the prayer in the suit is for the cancellation of the sale-deeds and for partition of moveable and immovable property and this falls within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court According to him, it is the main prayer or relief claimed in the suit which is to be looked into in order to decide the jurisdiction of the Court. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents have contended that Section 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts on matters which have to be decided by the Revenue Court and the main relief as well as the cause of action in the plaint is to be looked into in order to decide as to which Courts has jurisdiction to try the same. According to him the main relief is that the plaintiffs are khatedars of the lands in dispute and the rest of the relief about cancellation of sale-deeds or of declaration trust they are void is consequential and cannot be taken into consideration for deciding the competency of a Civil Court or a Revenue Court, for deciding the cases. There have