1996 Supreme(Raj) 1405
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
B.J.Shethana, J.
Dharam Chand - Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1204 of 1989.
Decided On : 3-12-1996
For the Petitioner:S.N. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:H.S. Sandhu and B.S. Bhati, Advocates.
The court has the discretionary power to exercise its jurisdiction in favor of those who come with clean hands.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Tenancy Act - Jurisdiction of Revenue Court to decide suit - Summary: The court considered the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court to decide a suit filed under the Tenancy Act and held that the suit was maintainable before the Revenue Court. The court found that the suit was mainly for eviction and handing over possession, and no relief was claimed to declare the sale deed null and void. The petitioner's claims were decided against him by the competent authority, and the court exercised its discretionary powers in favor of the respondents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Revenue Court, which decreed the suit for eviction under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the petitioner and another respondent. The petitioner claimed that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit and should have referred the issue to the civil court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit filed before the Revenue Court was maintainable, and the petitioner's claims were decided against him by the competent authority. The court exercised its discretionary powers in favor of the respondents, as equity was not in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Revenue Court, Validity of sale deed, Scheduled Caste status of the parties
Ratio Decidendi: The suit was maintainable before the Revenue Court as it was mainly for eviction and handing over possession. The court exercised its discretionary powers in favor of the respondents, as equity was not in favor of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner who claims to be Harijan has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the Revenue Court i.e. S.D.O., Hanumangarh on 18.6.82 (Annex. 2) by which the suit filed by the present respondents No. 4 to 8 for eviction under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Act) came to be decreed against the petitioner and Shri Milkhi Ram, respondent No. 9 against which an appeal was preferred before the Revenue appellate authority, Bikaner which came to be dismissed on 27.1.1983 (Annex. 3). Second appeal preferred before the Board of Revenue also came to be dismissed on 5.10.88 (Annex. 4). These orders have been challenged by the petitioner in this petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Strictly speaking this is not a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Learned Counsel Shri Sharma for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit filed by the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 under the Tenancy Act. He submitted that it is only the civil court which had the jurisdiction to decide whether the sale deed was valid or not. He submitted that since the petitioner raised an objection before the revenue court that he was a schedule caste man and the sale deed was genuine one and the revenue court ought to have referred the issue after framing it to the civil court and only after the decision of the civil court the revenue court should have proceeded to decide the suit. In support of his submission, learned Counsel Shri Sharma relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1955 Rajasthan page 94 (c).
3. It must be stated that when the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 filed a suit against Milkhi Ram and their father Niku Ram they have lateron transpose as one of the plaintiffs and the present petitioner was not joined as defendant. Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 who filed the suit before the revenue court are Harijans. They filed suit before the revenue court alleging that their father Niku Ram executed sale deed and sold the land by 'Benami transaction' in favour of Milkhi Ram who was having possession of the land and, therefore, prayed for eviction and handover the possession to them from Milkhi Ram. It was then the petitioner applied before the revenue court to join himself as party defendant and he was allowed to be joined as one of the defendant. The revenue court after considering the evidence of the witnesses and the entire material on record came to the conclusion that the transaction was a 'benami transaction' and also gave the finding that the petitioner was not a schedule caste person and, therefore, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 to 8. The revenue court also found that the petitioner Dharm Chand was not staying at the village where the land is situated and he has never cultivated the land. It also gave a definite finding that it was Milkhi Ram who was in possession of the land hence the suit was decreed and the possession was ordered to be handed over to the respondent Nos. 4 to 8.
4. The aforesaid judgment of the Court cited by Mr. Sharma has no application to the facts of the present case. That case arisen out of the suit filed before the civil court for cancellation of sale deed executed and other reliefs of restoration of possession and for perpetual injunction were claimed as ancillary reliefs. Considering the facts and circumstances of that case this Court held that suit was exclusively triable by civil court and not by revenue court. The facts stated earlier and as set out in detail by the revenue court clearly show that the suit filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 8 before the revenue court was maintainable and in my opinion has rightly not referred the matter to the civil court. The suit was mainly for eviction and handing over the possession and no relief was claimed in the suit to
Click Here to Read the rest of this document