Dave, J.—Both these references have been made by the Assistant Collector, Beawar, through the Collector, Ajmer, and since they involve a common question of law, they are disposed of together.

2. The facts giving rise to them are that on 16.12.55, Codu and Shriram filed a representative suit on behalf of themselves and other residents of village Lordi in the court of Sub-Judge, Beawar. This was numbered as Suit No. 222 of 1955. . It was filed against Surajmal and other residents of village Daulatpura Sathana. The plaintiffs case was that there was one pasture land of village Lordi measuring about 100 bighas known as bada beed. It was asserted that the plaintiffs and other residents of village Lordi were grazing their cattle on the said pasture land for the last several years without any interruption or hindrance from anybody, that on the 15th December, 1955 the defendants had started cutting down the grass growing on the said pasture land and that they had also let loose their cattle to graze therein. It was prayed that a perpetual injunction be issued against the defendants restraining them, their servants and agents from cutting and removing the grass growing on the said pasture land.

3. On 12.12.56 the same plaintiffs together with four more persons of the same village filed another suit in the same court of Sub-Judge, Beawar. This suit was numbered as No. 308 of 1956. In this case, the Union of India and the States of Rajasthan were also impleaded as defendants besides the residents of village Daulatpura. It was again asserted by the plaintiffs that the residents of village Lordi alone had a right to graze their cattle on the bada beed. It was alleged that on 10.12.55 the former State of Ajmer the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Beawar, sold the grass growing on the said pasture land to defendant No. 3 for a sum of Rs. 401/- and thereby infringed the plaintiffs right to graze their cattle. It was further alleged that on 22.9.56 the Extra Assistant Commissioner and Tehsildar Beawar further sold the standing grass of the said bada beed to defendant No. 6 subject to confirmation by the Collector. According to the plaintiffs,this action on the part of the former State of Ajmer was illegal. The plaintiffs, therefore, prayed for a declaration that they had got right, title and interest to graze their cattle on the bada beed of Lordi to the exclusion of the cattle of other villages and that the sale of the standing grass by the former State of Ajmer on 10.12.55 and 22.9.56 was wrong and illegal. They further prayed for a perpetual injunction against all the defendants restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs right to graze their cattle on the said beed.

4. Both these cases were contested by the defendants. In May, 1958, both these cases were transferred by the learned Civil Judge, Beawar, to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Asstt. Collector) Beawar under sec. 206(3) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, since he thought that they were exclusively triable by a revenue court. The Assistant Collector Beawar, however, thought that the cases were not covered by any of the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, that the revenue court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine them and thus there being a conflict of views between the civil court and the revenue court about their respective jurisdiction, the present reference has been made under sec. 243 of the Rajasthan Tenancy "Act.

5. Nobody has appeared in this Court on behalf of the defendants Surajmal and others, that is, residents of village Daulatpura. Learned Assistant Government Advocate has appeared on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and supports the reference.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs opposes the reference. It is urged by him that both the suits are covered by sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and therefore they are exclusively triable by a revenue court. Sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which will hereinafter be referred as the Act, runs as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document