Modi, J.—This second appeal by the plaintiff raises a short question as to jurisdiction inasmuch as the plaintiffs suit has been dismissed by the District Judge, Kotah, by his judgment and decree dated the 25th February, 1958, on the rinding that the suit was exclusively triable by a revenue court.

2. The material facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are, there fore, alone required to be stated. The dispute centres round some 48 odd Bighas of agricultural land situate in village Badan, Tehsil Baran. Mst. Jadav, widow of one Gopilal Jat, was admittedly recorded as the last Khatedar of some 102 Bighas of agricultural land of which the land in dispute forms a portion. The plaintiffs case is that Mst. Jadav granted a usufructuary mortgage of the entire land for a sum of Rs. 3000/-to the former by a registered mortgage-deed dated the 1st May, 1951. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 Dhulilal alleging himself to be the heir of Mst. Jadavs husband Gopilal took forcible possession of the 48 odd Bighas of land on the 4th August 1951. The plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the sub-Divisional Officer, Baran, for possession of this land which was decreed by him, but, on appeal, that decree was set aside right upto the revenue Board. This has led to the institution of the present suit by the plaintiff in the court of the Civil Judge, Baran, on the 3rd April, 1956. Put briefly, he prays for possession of the 48 odd bighas of land on the ground that the defendant Dhulilal is a clear trespasser with respect to it, and he has also claimed mesne profits for two years amounting to Rs. 674/- according to certain calculations which have been mentioned in the plaint but which may not be repeated for the purposes of the present appeal. Alternatively, the plaintiff claims that if possession is not allowed to him, then a decree be passed for the return of the entire mortgage money in his favour which amounts to Rs. 3000/- together with two years mesne profits amounting to Rs. 674/- as stated above.

3. Mst. Jadav admitted the plaintiffs claim in toto. The other defendant Dhulilal raised a number of objections to the suit, out of which the only one which is relevant to consider at this stage is that the civil court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of and decide this suit as it was exclusively triable by a revenue court. The Civil Judge repelled the objection as to jurisdiction and decreed the plaintiffs suit for possession and mesne profits against defendant Dhuli Lal but dismissed it as against Mst. Jadav the other defendant. Dhulilal went up in appeal to the District Judge Kotah who by his judgment under appeal reversed the decision of the trial court on the question of jurisdiction and holding that the suit was exclusively triable by a revenue court dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Hence the present appeal.

4. The only question to decide at the present stage, therefore, is whether the suit as brought by the plaintiff is exclusively triable by a revenue court or not. It is to be regretted that the contesting defendant respondent has not chosen to appear in this Court in spite of service.

5. Be that as it may, I have examined the case with all the thoroughness which it deserves and have come to the conclusion that the finding of the learned District Judge on the question of jurisdiction is correct. From the analysis of the plaint which I have given above, it is clear that the plaintiffs suit is primarily one for possession against a trespasser with respect to an agricultural land. To my mind, such a suit inevitably attracts the provisions of sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Act No. 3 of 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1955) which came into force on the 15th October, 1955, before the present suit was instituted on the 3rd April, 1956. The material portion of sec. 183 reads as follows:—

"Ejectment of certain trespassers. — (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any provision of this Act, a trespasser

Click Here to Read the rest of this document