The court established that statutory remedies must be exhausted before civil suits can be entertained, particularly under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act.

ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment & decree dated 25.10.2018 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Abu Road, whereby the judgment & decree dated 02.01.2014 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Abu Road has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the appellants has been dismissed.

2. The suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants, inter alia, seeking following reliefs:-

3. In the suit, the plaintiffs set out grounds questioning the validity of the orders in various paragraphs.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants No. 1 to 4 alongwith additional pleas regarding non-maintainabiliy of the suit in view of provisions of Section 20 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (?the Act?)-

5. Based on pleadings, trial court framed six issues. While issue No.l and 2 were deleted exercising powers under Order XIV, Rule 5(2) CPC during the course of judgment and rest of the issues while decided against the plaintiffs. On issue No.5, which pertained to the additional pleas raised pertaining to maintainability of the suit, the trial court, inter alia, came to the conclusion that as the plaintiffs did not file appeal under Section 20 of the Act and suit under Section 22 of the Act was not maintainable and as the plaintiffs claimed that the disputed property was not the property of the Trust and was their personal property, a suit for declaration of title should have been filed and as the suit has been filed seeking declaration against the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan, against which, no appeal was filed, the suit was barred. Based on its finding on issues No. 3 to 6, the suit was dismissed.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed first appeal. The first appellate court, after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that deletion of issue No.l and 2 was justified and upheld the finding on rest of the issues and consequently dismissed the appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants, attempted to make submissions that the suit questioning the validity of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan was maintainable, however, submitted that as the courts below came to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable, they should have not recorded any finding on merits of the dispute and should have directed the plaintiffs to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The recording of findings on merit alongwith holding that the suit was not maintainable has resulted in grave prejudice to the appellants.

8. Reliance has been placed on Bijoy Krishna Maity v. Putin Behari Khanra & Ors., 1996 (8) Scale (SP) 32.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant.

9. The findings recorded by the two courts below regarding non-maintainability of the suit while deciding issue No.5 is in consonance with the settled law, inasmuch as, once the appellants were seeking to question the validity of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan, the remedy provided under Section 20 of the Act should have been availed by the appellants as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in this regard is barred under Section 73 of the Act.

10. The appellants, besides questioning the validity of the orders attempted to set up a case that they have the right in the suit property and that the indication of the property as Trust property by the Assistant Commissioner, Devsthan was not justified. However, no such declaration regarding the property being private property of the appellants was sought in the suit, as quoted hereinbefore.

11. In view thereof, the findings of the two courts below regarding non-maintainability of the suit, cannot be faulted.

12. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants regarding the two courts below, returning findings on merits of the dispute despite coming to the conclusion regarding non-maintainability of the suit is concerned, it is true that wherever a court comes to a conclusion that either it lacks