SACHAR, J.—This is a revision petition by the defendant against the order of the Civil Judge dated 13-12-75 by which he has held that the suit is cognizable by the Civil Court.

2. The plaintiff has filed a suit alleging that he is the owner and in possession of the suit land,. It is alleged that the defendant No. 4 purporting to act as the holder of a power of attorney from the plaintiff and has executed a sale deed in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 of the land belonging to plaintiff. It is alleged that defendant No. 4 was not appointed by the plaintiffs nor was he the holder of power of attorney from the plaintiffs and consequently the sale deeds executed are void, inoperative and of no effect and therefore they should be cancelled and the defendants be restrained by permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiffs possession of the suit land. Defendant through an application raised the preliminary objection that the court fees has not been properly paid and suit has not been properly valued. Another objection raised was that the suit was not triable by a civil court but by a revenue court.

3. With regard to the point of court fees the trial court has held that it is a question of fact and no definite finding can be given in the absence of clear averment until the written statement is filed and evidence has been recorded. It has opined that it is premature to decide this important question at this early stage. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Asopa wanted to rely on section 38 of the Rajasthan Court Fees Act. Apart from what bad been urged in the trial court I feel that in view of the fact that the trial court has taken the view that the question of valuation can only be decided after some evidence has been taken, it is not possible for me to interfere at this stage in revision with this finding, of course it is open to the petitioner to raise the objection on the basis of sec. 38 of the Court Fees Act before the trial court as the said question has yet to be decided by it.

4. With regard to the second point the trial court has taken the view that it is cognizable by the civil court and this the petitioner challenges seriously. Sec. 207 (1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act provides that all suits and applications of the nature specified in the third Schedule shall be heard and determined by a revenue court. Item No. 23C in third schedule mentions suit for perpetual injunction. Counsel for the petitioners contention is that the present is a suit for perpetual injunction and therefore it is congnizable only by a revenue court. It is well settled that the question of jurisdiction namely, whether a suit is exclusively triable by a revenue court or a civil court can take congizance of it has to be decided on the allegations made in the plaint. It is also further settled that it is the substance of the plaint and the true nature of the suit that is to be seen to determine the question of jurisdiction. If in substance the relief claimed is one which the revenue courts alone are entitled to give the jurisdiction of the civil courts will be ousted even though it may require the revenue court to incidentally determine some ancillary facts. Mr. Asopa relies mainly on Asala vs. Narain(l) in which it was held that suits of the nature mentioned in sec. 207 means suits not only which squarely fall within the four walls of various items specified in the third Schedule but also those which may not so fall but which may partake of the nature thereof can be heard and determined by a revenue court only. In that case after examining the substance of the plaint Modi J. came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs case is virtually for a declaration of their rights as tenants with respect to the land in suit and further for recovery of possession if they were found to be out of it. It was found that such a suit was covered by items 5, 7 and 8 of third Schedule. It was also found that the suit for possession was governed by sec. 183 (1)(b) of the Te

Click Here to Read the rest of this document