Modi, J.—This is a reference by the Civil Judge Pratapgarh under sec. 243 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (No. III of 1953), and arises under the following circumstances.

2. The proceeding out of which the present reference emerges was an application for redemption of mortgage of certain agricultural land by the mortgagor Nathu, and was presented in the court of the Sub Divisional Officer, Ghittorsgarh apparently under serial No. 5, Group B, First Schedule of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act (No. I) of 1951. The mortgage was usufructuary, and was made in Svt. year 1992 (equal to 1935 A. D.). The application for redemption was filed in the court of the Sub-Divisonal Officer on the 24th June, 1955 The Rajasthan Tenancy Act (No. III) of 1955 came into force on the 15th October, 1955. Then came the Rajasthan Tenancy First Amendment Act (No. XXVII) of 1956. This came into force on the 22nd September, 1956 After this Amendment Act came into force, the Sub Divisional Officer seems to have thought that the proceeding filed by the mortgagor Nathu for redemption of mortgage was not a matter which was exclusively within the purview of the revenue courts and so he transferred the same to the Civil Judge Chittorgarh. The Civil Judge in his turn formed the opinion that the mortgagers suit or application (for the nomenclature does not matter) in the present case was exclusively triable by a revenue court in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and consequently he has made the present reference.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the mortgagor Nathu and the learned Deputy Government Advocate, and have come to the conclusion that the proceeding filed by Nathu lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue courts and therefore, a civil court has and would have no jurisdiction to entertain it. In this connection it is necessary to recapitulate briefly the state of legislation in so far as it bears on the jurisdiction to entertain suits for redemption of mortgages with respect to agricultural land. Although some varying decisions came to be given on this point in cases which arose under the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, the position was finally settled by a Full Bench of this Court in Badri vs. Krishna (1) wherein the view taken in an earlier Division Bench case Krishna vs. Hema(2) to which I was a party was approved, and it was held that a suit for redemption of a mortgage in respect of agricultural land clearly fell within the spirit and intendment of sec. 7 of the Act, and that the circumstance whether the proceeding was called a suit and was initiated by a plaint or it may not be called a suit and may be initiated by an application would not make any material difference so far as the jurisdiction to entertain such proceeding was concerned. Then came the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (No. III) of 1955, which came into operation on the 15th October, 19.5. Serial No. 2 of Schedule 1 of this Act did make a provision for suits relating to redemption of mortgages This was followed by the Rajasthan Tenancy (First Amendment) Act (No. XXVII) of 1956 by s.55 whereof it was enacted that Serial No. 2 shall be omitted and shall be deemed to always have been omitted. It is unnecessary to speculate as to the reasons which might have led to the omission of this provision. The material question to consider is whether this provision made any difference as to the proper venue for suits in redemption of mortgages relating to agricultural land. I have given my most careful and anxious consideration to this question, and have come to the conclusion that the omission of serial No. 2 from the Schedule did not make any difference whatever as to the exclusive jurisdiction of the revenue courts to entertain such suits. Sec. 43 of the Act was left intact, and that section clearly shows that a suit for redemption of a mortgage was and would be a suit in respect of a matter which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document