MODI, J.—This is a reference by the Assistant Collector, Sojat, under sec. 40 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 (Act No. 1 of 1951), and has arisen in the following circumstances.

2. The plaintiffs Chandanmal and others are mortgagees in possession of a certain well called Nokhra Motora situated in village Mani, Tehsil Sojat. The plaintiffs claimed their possession in respect of half of this well by virtue of a Baraskati deed dated Asad Sudi 15, Svt., 2000, executed in their favour by defendants Dhulsingh and others and further alleged that they were also in possession of the other half obviously with the consent of the original owners and that they carried on cultivation on the well and the land in question for several years. Their grievance was that defendant No. 1 Dawar had commenced forcible cultivation on the well in question, and the said defendant was bent upon cultivating the land inspite of protest, and, therefore, they instituted the present suit. The plaintiffs prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant from carrying on any cultivation on the well in question and from interfering with their possession in any manner whatsoever. They also prayed for recovery of possession in case it was found that they were out of possession of the portion of the well upon which the defendant had started cultivation. They further claimed a sum of Rs. 100 - as damages and further compensation in lieu of loss of rent up to the period the defendant removes his possession from the land in question.

3. The plaintiffs instituted their suit on 31.10.1950 in the court of the Munsiff, Sojat. On 14th March, 1951, the Additional Munsiff to whose court the case had meanwhile been transferred, passed an order that the suit was triable by a revenue court and directed its transfer to the court of the Assistant Collector, Sojat, under sec. 6 (3) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. The case was, accordingly, transferred to the court of the learned Assistant Collector, Sojat. On the 19th October, 1951, the learned Assistant Collector recorded an order that the suit was triable by a civil court, and has made the present reference after obtaining the sanction of the Collector Pali under sec. 40 (3) of the said Act.

4. None of the parties to the suit has appeared in this Court.

5. The point for determination is whether the present suit is cognizable by a revenue court or by a civil court. Now, sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act lays down that "all suits and applications of the nature specified in the first and second schedules shall be heard and determined by a revenue court." The learned Assistant Collector appears to have thought that the present suit does not fall within any of the items of the first or second schedules of that Act. I am of opinion that in order to determine whether a suit is triable by a revenue court, or by a civil court, certain basic principles must be borne in mind. One such principle is that it should not be readily inferred that the jurisdiction of the civil courts is barred unless such an inference can be raised by an express provision of law or by necessary implication. Another thing which should be borne in mind is that the question of jurisdiction must be initially determined by the allegations made in the plaint. Thus, whether a suit for possession of land is cognizable by a civil court or not depends entirely upon the frame of the suit and the allegations contained in the plaint. A further principle which should be kept in view is what is the substance of the suit and what is its main object, or, in other words, what is the real contest between the parties. In order to determine this the principle is well settled that one. must look to the substance of the plaint and not merely to its outward form. If this is not done, it is obvious that it may be open to a party to evade the entire law as to exclusiveness of j

Click Here to Read the rest of this document