Modi, J.—This is a reference by the Revenue Board and has arisen in the following circumstanes.

2. The opposite party Jeewan filed a suit-against Mohan in the court of the Munsiff, Churu, for the recovery of certain arrears of rent from Svt. 2003 to Svt. 2006 in respect of certain agricultural land situate in village Kharia, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant had taken a lease of the land in dispute from the plaintiff. This suit was filed on the 19th August, 1950. The Munsiff decreed the suit by his judgment dated the 29th January, 1951. It would be convenient to state at this place that the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act (No 1) of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Rajasthan Act.) came into force on the 31st January, 1951. Defendant Mohan took an appeal from the judgment of the Munsiff to the Civil Judge, Churu, who dismissed the appeal on 15th November, 1951. Thereafter the defendant preferred a second appeal before the Revenue Board on the 19th December, 1951. It was contended before the revenue Board that the suit out of which the appeal arose was of a revenue nature, and the civil court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of it. The Revenue Board, however thought that it was faced with a difficulty, as sec. 6(3) of the Rajasthan Act did not in terms provide for transfer of any appeals therein. The Board has accordingly made a reference to this Court under sec. 40(1) of the said Act.

3. The first and foremost question to decide is what was the nature of the suit at its very inception when it was filed in the court of the Munsiff, Churu, on 19-8-1950. The suit, in my judgment, even then being one for recovery of arrears of rent by a landlord against a tenant was one which was exclusively triable by a revenue court, and was covered by sec. 111(3) of the Bikaner State Tenancy Act (Act II) of 1945 hereinafter referred to as the Bikaner Act which was then in force. As already pointed cut above, the Rajasthan Act came into force later on 31st January, 1951. According to sec. 111(3) of the Bikaner Act, the suits specified thereunder were to be instituted in and heard by a revenue court and no other court could take cognizance of any dispute or matter falling therein which might form the subject matter of a suit. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the suit of the plaintiff in the present case was exclusively of a revenue nature even at its very commencement and should have been filed in a competent revenue court. The being so, I must further hold that the Munsiff had no jurisdiction whatsoever to entertain and decide the suit. Be that as it may, the Munsiff having decided the suit, an appeal was taken from his decision to the court of the Civil Judge. As the appeal taken to the Civil Judge was from the decision of a Munsiff which was a civil court, I am of opinion that as the law relating to appeals stands an appeal could only lie to the Civil Judge. For the same reason, I am of opinion that an appeal from the decision of the Civil Judge, being a second appeal, lies only to the High Court and not to the Revenue Board under sec. 100 C. P. C. It has been brought to my notice that appeals have been preferred from the decisions of the Civil Judge directly to the Revenue Board in certain other similar cases, and learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was misled by that practice into filing an appeal also before the Revenue Board. In this connection Balsingh vs. Goruram (case No. 21 of Svt. 2008) has been brought to my notice, in which a second appeal was filed against the decision of the Civil Judge, Churu before the Revenue Board on the ground that the subject matter of the suit was of a revenue nature. It further appears that the Revenue Board held that the judgment of the Civil Judge was a nullity, and transferred the appeal to the Commissioner, Bikaner, for a fresh decision. Having given my careful consideration to this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document