Wanchoo, C.J.—This reference is by a Division Bench of this Court, and the question referred is as follows:—

"Whether a suit for redemption of agricultural land is triable a civil or a revenue court?"

2. The facts leading to this reference may be briefly mentioned. Kishna and Kana filed a suit in the court of the Munsif, Jaipur in November, 1946, for redemption of agricultural land and two wells attached to it. The Munsif held on the 14th of April, 1949, that the suit was triable by a civil court. Thereupon, there was a revision by the plaintiffs, and this Court held in July, 1950, that the suit was triable by the civil court. When the record when back to the Munsif, and proceedings began again, the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act (No.I) of 1950 (hereinafter called the Act) came into force. Thereupon the Munsif held that, in view of secs. 6 and 7 of the Act, the suit was triable by the revenue court, and accordingly transferred it to the court of the Sub-divisional Officer. Thereupon, the defendant filed this revision against the order of the Munsif, and his case is that the suit is triable by the civil court.

3. The matter came before a learned Single Judge of this Court, and it was urged before him that as under the laws of the former State of Jaipur no application could be made in respect of redemption in a revenue court, the revenue court could not have jurisdiction to decide redemption suits or applications under the provisions contained in Schedule I, group D, item 5 of the Act. The learned Single Judge thought it fit, in view of the important point raised before him to refer the matter to a Division Bench.

4. The case came before the Division Bench on the 7th of the October, 1955 Before that however a similar point was decided by a Divisional Bench at Jodhpur, which is reported as Kishna vs. Hema(l) (hereinafter to be referred to as Hemas case). Another Bench of this Court had also considered this question of the jurisdiction of the civil or revenue court in the matter of redemption suits, and came to a conclusion which was contrary to Hemas case, (vide Kishna vs. Gheesa(2) (hereinafter to be referred to as Gheesas case. Unfortunately the earlier decision in Hemas case was not brought to the notice of the Bench deciding Gheesas case. Therefore when the present case came before another Division Bench on the 7th of October, 1954, and this conflict of opinion came to light, the present reference has been made to a Full Bench.

5. The question, therefore, which the Full Bench has to decide is whether the view taken in Hemas case is correct, or that in Gheesas case.

6. Before we consider the reasoning in the two cases, we propose to look into the provisions of the Act, and the powers it confers on the revenue courts in the matter of redemption of land. Item 5, Group D, Schedule I, provides for applications by a mortgagor for redemption of land and for redelivery of possession. Sec. 7 of the Act provides for the power the revenue court to deal with such applications, and this power is in these terms:—

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

Thus the Act gives power to the revenue court to her and determine all applications by a mortgagor for redemption of land, and for redelivery of possession. The revenue court thus has full power to order redemption of the land mortgaged, and to order the mortgagee to put the the mortgagor in possession. This power it can exercise after hearing the defence of the mortgagee, and it has the authority to reject the defence if it considers, in the particular circumstance of the case, that the defence is not valid. In effect, therefore, though the proceeding under item 5 of Group D of the First Schedule starts on an application it is in no way different from a suit for redemption of mortgaged land. The court before which such application is made, has full power to decide all question

Click Here to Read the rest of this document