Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application by Chimna under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari and arises in the following circumstances:—

Girdhari brought a suit against Chimna and his father Daula for ejectment from certain land. Girdhari claimed that the land was Bapidari tenancy of one Deda who died many years ago. His widow Mst. Suwati adopted Girdhari in October, 1948, and since then Girdhari was in possession of the land as the adopted son of Deda. He was forcibly ejected by Chimna and Daula in 1950. Consequently, he filed this suit in April, 1952. for, possession of the land on the ground that he was the rightful owner of the Bapidari rights in the land.

2. The suit was resisted by the present applicant and his father and the case that appears to have been put forward on their behalf was that it was not open to the revenue court to decide the question of adoption as that was a matter of status and further that an issue should have been framed under sec. 36 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 (Act No. 1 of 1951) and referred to the Civil Court in this connection. Further, the case of the applicant before the revenue courts was that Girdhari had not been validly adopted as a son to Deda.

3. The main issue thus in the case was whether Mst. Suwati had adopted the plaintiff Girdhari by a registered deed, dated 28th of October, 1948 and whether the adoption was valid.

4. We must say that a curious view seems to prevail in the revenue courts about their right to decide a question like this. The Sub-Divisional Office, though he says that Girdhari had been proved to be the adopted son of Deda, qualified that finding with the words that it was not open to the revenue court to decide whether the adoption was valid and the registration according to rules and that this matter could only be gone info in the civil court. The Additional Commissioner seems also to hold the same view, for, he opined that though an issue could have been framed under sec.36 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, it was not necessary to do so because the plea was untenable. He also did not decide the validity of the adoption. The learned members of the Board took the view that sec. 36 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 had no application as Deda was a tenant. They were also of the view that it was not necessary to decide the question of the validity or otherwise of the adoption because Girdhari had become a Khatedar by virtue of sec. 10 of the Marwar Tenancy Act, 1949. The first question, therefore, that arises for our determination is whether a question of status like the one in dispute in this case can be decided by the revenue court. We are of opinion that where such a question is raised as ancillary to or in support of claim to land or tenancy and where the suit for the land or tenancy can properly be filed in the revenue court, that court has ful authority to decide all such questions of status. The only question arising in suits before them which the revenue courts cannot decide and for which they have to frame an issue and refer it to the Civil Court are those mentioned in sec. 36 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts(Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. But as rightly pointed out by the Board of Revenue, sec. 36 has no application in this case because this is admittedly a case of Bapidari tenancy which is not the same thing as proprietary right. Learned counsel for applicant referred to sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act which gives power to civil court to give declaration as to status. But that section does not bar any court which is rightly seized of a case to give a decision as to status. In this connection reference was made to Peri Kameswar Rao vs. Peri Jagannadha Sastry(l). That was, however, a converse case. There a person was in possession of a hereditary office and claimed to be so in possession by virtue of being the adopted son of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document