Modi, J. —This case has come to us on a reference by one of us sitting singly.

2. The facts out of which the reference has arisen may be stated very shortly. Plaintiff Hema filed a suit on the 12th September, 1950, for redemption of certain agricultural land in the court of the Munsiff, Chhoti Sadri. The Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, (Act No. I of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act) having come into force on the 31st January, 1951, the Munsiff transferred the suit to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nimbaheda, on the 30th April, 1951. The Sub-Divisional Officer, however, sent the case back to the Munsiff, Chhoti Sadri, on the ground that in a similar case is was held by this Court that suits for redemption of agricultural land were triable by a civil court only. After the case was transferred to the Munsiff, Chhoti Sadri, the defendants raised an objection that the Munsiff had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit, and Sub-Divisional Officer, Nimbaheda, had no authority to re-transfer it to the Munsiffs court. The Munsiff over-ruled the objection by his order dated the 13th of December, 1951, whereupon the petitioners in this court preferred a revision against the above order, which came before one of us and has now been referred to this Bench. The Munsiff relied on Hira vs. Kanhaiyalal (S.B. Civil Reference No. 74 of 1951 decided on 9th August, 1951), an unreported case in which a learned single Judge (Nawal Kishore J.) took the view that a suit for redemption of agricultural land was not covered by serial No. 5 Group D of Schedule (1) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act which only deals with "application for redemption of a mortgage" and, therefore, such a suit was outside the scope of that Act. In a later case Shrichand vs. Daulatram (1) , Sharma J. held that a suit for redemption of mortgage of agricultural land was exclusively triable by a revenue court. In this state of conflict, the question that falls for consideration in this case is whether a suit for redemption of agricultural land is cognizable by the civil courts or is one which falls within sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act and is, therefore, exclusively triable by a revenue court.

3. It is admitted before us that if such a suit was filed after the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act came into force, it would fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue courts in view of the First Schedule. Group D, Serial No. 5 of the said Act. It is also admitted, and in our opinion quite rightly, by learned counsel for the opposite parties that the subject matter of such a proceeding would be exclusively triable by the revenue courts regardless of the consideration that the party seeking the relief filed a suit instead of an application. The simple reason is that the court must look at the substance of the matter and not merely at its outward form, and if such a suit happens to be filed in a civil court after the coming into force of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Act, the civil court cannot take cognizance of it on account of sub-sec. (l)and(2) of sec. 7 and must return it for presentation to the proper court. The relevant portion of sec. 7 is in the following terms :—

"7. (1) All suits and applications of the nature specified in the first and second schedules shall be heard and determined by a revenue court.

(2) 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." Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 7 lays emphasis not on the from of the proceeding which may be a suit or application but on the cause of action with respect to which relief is claimed. If such a cause of action is covered by the first or the second schedule of the Act, then it can be heard and determined only by a revenue court and the jurisdiction of a civil court mu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document