JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—This is a reference by the Munsiff Rajsamand under sec. 243(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

2. The present suit was instituted by Bhera on 26th November, 1962 in the court of Assistant Collector, Rajsamand for the redemption of his tenancy holding consisting of plots Nos. 34 to 40 and 42/8, situated in village Sangat Tehsil Kummalgarh. It was alleged in the plaint that the holding was mortgaged with possession in favour of Kesarsingh defendant No. 1 for Rs. 88/- about 8 years prior to the institution of the suit, that the mortgage-deed which was executed on a stamped paper by him was in the possession of defendant No. 1 and that the mortgaged money had been fully paid out of the profits from the land. In the alternative it was stated that he was willing to pay whatever might be found due on the mortgage. A prayer for redemption was made.

3. The Assistant Collector was of the opinion that the suit was triable by the civil court and not by the revenue court. He accordingly returned the plaint for presentation before the civil court having jurisdiction.

4. When the plaint was presented before the Munsiff Rajsamand he made the present reference under sec. 243(2) as he was of the opinion that in view of the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Asala vs. Narain(l) the suit was triable by the revenue court.

5. I have carefully examined the decision and I find that all that was laid down in it was that the intention of the legislature in using the phrase "of the nature" in sec. 207 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was that suits which not only squarely fall within the four walls of the various items specified in the Third Schedule, but also those which may not so fall but which may partake the nature thereof, can be heard and determined by a revenue court only. Sec. 207 runs as follows:

"207. Suit and applications cognizable by revenue court only. — (1) All suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court.

(2) No court other than a revenue court shall take cognizance of any such suit or application or of any suit or application based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application.

Explanation: — If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief might be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court is greater than, or additional to, or is not identical with, that which the revenue court could have granted."

It will be seen that a suit can be held to be triable by the revenue court under the above section only if the revenue court is able to grant substantial relief to the plaintiff. The observations made in Asala vs. Narain (1) have to be read in the light of the explanation to sec. 207. In para 6 it was observed:—

"The guiding test according to these decisions, put in a nutshell, is: what is the true nature of the suit, or what [is its object as disclosed by the allegations contained in the plaint? If the answer to these questions is that the plaintiff seeks the establishment of reliefs which essentially fall within the scope of the Tenancy Act, that is, the Act of 1955, with which we are concerned here, then the conclusion as to the proper jurisdiction of such a suit is and must be that it is one which is exclusively triably by a revenue court, and that the jurisdiction of the civil courts to try and dispose of such suits is wholly barred. That is the gist of sec. 207 of the said Act which lays down that all suits and applications "of the nature" specified in the Third Schedule thereof shall be heard and determined by a revenue court."

6. In the present suit the plaintiff who is a tenant of the holding wants to get possession over it from defendant No. 1, the usufructuary mortgagee and defendant No. 2 who is in actual physical possession of the holding on behalf of defendant No. 1 on payment of mortgage money remaini

Click Here to Read the rest of this document