IMPORTANT POINT
The Revenue Court lacks jurisdiction to declare legal status; such matters must be referred to the Civil Court as per the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition filed by the appellant, assailing the order passed by the Board of Revenue in second appeal, has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the revenue suit was filed seeking declaration of khatedari rights and no declaration of legal status as adopted son was sought by the appellant. Merely because the defendants in the revenue suit disputed the legal status, there was no occasion for the Revenue Court to go into the question with regard to the legal status of the appellant as the adopted son of late Phool Singh, more so when in other mutation proceedings, defendants did not dispute this legal status.

4. We find that the Board of Revenue and learned Single Judge both have concurrently held that once the legal status of the appellant as adopted son of late Phool Singh was disputed by the defendants in the revenue suit, it fell for decision making as to whether the appellant Laxman Singh was legally adopted son of Phool Singh.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant does not quarrel with the settled legal position that if the issue pertains to declaration of legal suits, the jurisdiction lies only with the Civil Court and not with the Revenue Court. His case seems to be that the issue did not arise for consideration before the Revenue Court.

6. We are unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. It is undisputed that the suit was filed seeking declaration of khatedari rights, which, in turn, was fundamentally premised on claim of a legal status as adopted son of late Phool Singh. The defendants however, refuted this claim and the legal status. This accordingly, give rise to an issue calling for determination. As the position of law in this regard stands well settled, in view of various decisions referred to by the learned Single Judge in its order, the jurisdiction with regard to declaration of legal status as to whether the appellant was legally adopted son of late Phool Singh lies exclusively with the Civil Court and the Revenue Court does not have jurisdiction. This legal position has been duly acknowledged under the statutory scheme of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘The act of 1955’).

7. Therefore, to the extent of the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue and affirmed by the learned Single Judge that the jurisdiction with regard to declaration of legal status lies exclusively with the Civil Court and not the Revenue Court, we are not inclined to interfere with those orders.

8. However, there is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that even if it was held by the Board of Revenue and learned Single Judge that the jurisdiction to declare legal status lies only with the Civil Court to the exclusion of Revenue Court, the proper course to be followed was to refer the issue for determination of the Civil Court, and after findings were returned, decide the revenue suit as revenue suit not only involves the determination of legal status but also other issues.

9. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the provisions contained in Section 239 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 which reads thus:-

“239. Procedure when plea of proprietary right raised— (1) If in any suit or proceeding in a revenue court, a question of proprietary right in respect of land forming the subject matter of such suit or proceeding is raised and such question has not previously been determined by a civil court of competent jurisdiction the revenue court shall frame an issue on the question of proprietary right and submit the record to the competent civil court for the decision of that issue only.

Explanation I. — A plea of proprietary right which is clearly untenable and intended solely to oust the jurisdiction of revenue court shall not be deemed to raise a question of Proprietary right within the meaning of this section.

Expl