Modi J.—These are four appeals which raise an identical question and have arisen in the following circumstances.

2. The plaintiff Rawal Zorawarsinghji of Jasol instituted four suits, out of which these appeals have arisen in the court of the Assistant Revenue Officer, Malani (Barmer), on 10th October, 1946, on the allegations that Moza Chandesra was a Patta village of his Jagir, that there was a custom that all Maha-jans who lived and worked within the village were liable to pay Jhumpi lag at the rate of 1/8/-per house per annum, and that the defendants were residents of and earring on business in that village. An objection was raised on behalf of the defendants that the suits were of a civil nature and were not triable by a revenue court. The Revenue Minister of the former Jodhpur State held that the suits were of a revenue nature as they fell within the four corners of rule 3(i)(e) of the Rules for the establishment of Revenue Courts, 1924, which were in force in that State at the time. Rule 3(i)(e) runs as follows :—

"The following cases shall be triable exclusively by Revenue Courts, whether the land is situated in a Khalsa or Jagir village, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Marwar Court Fees Act, 1914, the court fees noted against each shall be the proper Court Fees leviable, namely :—

Cases in which the matter at issue is. Court Fees Leviable.

(a)........................ ..................

(b) ........................ .................

(c)........................ ...................

(d) ................... ......................

(e) Where the dues claimed are manorial dues arising ......................

out of the exercise of any right or privilege in land, ..............

whether they are payable and if so, on what scale ...............

and whether in cash or kind." ................

3. The suits were accordingly returned to the Assistant Revenue Officer for being heard and disposed of accordingly. Then came the Marwar Tenancy Act in force on the 6th April, 1949. These suits were transferred to the Tehsildar, Barmer, (under sec. 2 of the Act) who decreed the suits in favour of the plaintiff on 31st May, 1950. First appeals were taken to the Collector who dismissed them. Thereafter, the defendants preferred second appeals to the Board of Revenue; but as the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, (Act No. I of 1951), (hereinafter referred to as the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act) had come into force on the 31st January, 1951, these appeals were transferred to the Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur. The Additional Commissioner came to the conclusion that the suits, out of which the appeals before him had arisen, were of a civil nature and were not triable by revenue courts and, therefore, he set aside the decrees passed by the Tehsildar and the Collector, and directed that the suits be transferred to a civil court of competent jurisdiction The defendants went in revision from that order to the Revenue Board. The gist of the order of the Revenue Board is that the suits were rightly transferred to the court of the Tehsildar who had jurisdiction to try them and that appeals were also rightly filed before the Collector or the Deputy Commissioners. The learned member of the Board, however, considered that having regard to the provision of secs. 7 and 6(4) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act, the suits in question could not be record by revenue courts as they did not fall within the first or second Schedules thereof and that second appeals, which were pending when the said Act came into force, shou(d have been transferred to a civil courts of com patent jurisdiction. It was therefore, held that the additional Commissioner should not have proceeded to hear the appeals but should have transferred them to a civil court of competent jurisdiction. Finally, the learned members set aside the order of the Additional) Commissioner and directed that these appeals be transferred to this Court for disposal. It is in thes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document