Wanchoo, C.J.—This is a reference by the Assistant Collector of Sojat under sec. 40(2) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act No. I of 1951, and has arisen in the following circumstances.

2. A suit was pending in the court of Munsif Sojat, who transferred it to the Assistant Collector under sec. 6 of Act I of 1951, holding that the suit was cognisable by the revenue court. The order sheet shows that the Munsif was of opinion that the suit was covered by items 2 and 9 of Group B of the First Schedule. When the case came to the Assistant Collector, he took the view that the civil court had jurisdiction. Therefore he has made this reference under sec. 40(2), though in his letter the Assistant Collector says that the reference is under sec. 40(1) of the Act.

3. The point raised in this reference is whether the jurisdiction is in the civil court or in the revenue court in a case where the relief claimed is partly within the jurisdiction of a civil court and partly within the jurisdiction of a revenue court.

4. The plaintiff in this case filed the suit before the Munsif, and prayed that the plaintiffs half share in the northern Persian wheel attached to the well named Pipalia in village Dhundla be declared. He further prayed that Kharias No. 11 to 18 be declared as already divided, and that it be further declared that Nos. 11 to 16 out of them are the plaintiffs. He also prayed that certain lands No. 1 to 10 and 19, which were joint be; divided, and the plaintiffs one-fourth share in them be actually demarcated. The reliefs could be granted to the plaintiffs in a suit which would be covered by items 2 and 13 of Group B of Schedule I of Act I of 1951.

5. In addition to these reliefs the plaintiff further prayed for certain reliefs with respect to his rights of irrigation from the well, and also prayed for a permanent injunction against three of the defendants. He also prayed for a decree for damages for Rs. 500/- against defendants 1 to 7. Besides these seven defendants, seven other defendants Nos. 8 to 14 were impleaded in the suit, though these defendants had nothing to do with the right to the well.

6. It seems to me that the suit, as it is framed, suffers from the defect of misjoinder of persons and causes of action, and it is necessary when the suit goes back to the trial court to have this matter cleared up. But the question, which has been referred, is as to what should be done in a suit in which part of the reliefs can be granted by the civil court and part by the revenue court.

7. A reference in this connection may be made to sec. 7(2) of Act I of 1951, which reads as follows: —

"No court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application, or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application.

Explanation—If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief might be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court is greater than, or additional to, or is not identical with, that which the revenue court could have granted.

I have already mentioned that the first relief in this case could be granted by the revenue court under items 2 and 13 of Group B of the First Schedule. The other relief that the plaintiff claims in respect of his right of irrigation would really follow from the declaration of his right in the well and need not have been specifically asked for; In any case, it is additional to the relief which can be granted by the Revenue Court, and follows from that relief, and the explanation to sec. 7(2) shows that the mere prayer of an additional relief will not take the suit out of cognizance of the revenue court.

8. Further the plaintiff has asked for a permanent injunction against three of the defendants Nos. 8, 13 and 14, who are supposed to be trying to take unlawful possession over the well. It is difficult to see how this relie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document