GUPTA, J.— This revision application has been filed against the order pas-sed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur, holding that the civil court-has jurisdiction to try the suit filed before him. The argument of the learned counsel is that the suit is exclusively triable by a revenue court and the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the same.

2. I have read the plaint with great care and attention. The case of the plaintiff in a nut shell is that the land in dispute was left as "Agor land" for the benefit of the general public and it was a common land of village people and as such, no khatedari rights could have accrued or could have been granted in the land in dispute. According to the plaintiff, the land has been used since times immemorial as "Agor land", that is, land necessary for the flow of water thereon into a reservoir or tank, used for drinking water for the village. The petitioner has sought a declaration to the effect that the land in dispute is un cultivable "Agor land" and no tenancy rights could be created therein, in favour of the defendants and that such land vests in the plaintiff namely, the Gram Panchayat, Agolai.

3. It is well settled that the question of jurisdiction has to be decided or* the basis of the averments made in the plaint. It is of course true that not only the relief claimed in the plaint but all the allegations made therein should be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the question as to whether the suit is exclusively triable by a revenue court or not. The court must be guided by the substance of the plaint and not merely by its form. Therefore, in order to arrive at a correct conclusion on the question of jurisdiction, the sub-Stance of the plaint must be taken into consideration to find out the true nature or the object of the suit. From a reading of the plaint as a whole, it appears that the plaintiffs case is based on the averment that the land in dispute is not agricultural land as defined in sub-section (24) of section 5 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and on the allegation that the said land was used since times immemorial for the flow of water into a tank or reservoir, which water is used for drinking purposes by the people of the village and) on that basis, the plaintiff claims, that no tenancy rights of any nature either khatedari or khudkasht, could accrue or be created in or over much land. Clause 14 of Section 16 of the Act provides that no khatedari rights shall accrue in any land which is necessary for the flow of water thereon into any reservoir or tank Used for drinking water for a village, or for surrounding villages. If the land in dispute is of the nature specified in clause 14 of section 16 of the Act and if the allegations made in the plaint in this respect are ultimately found to be true,, then it is beyond controversy that khatedari rights could neither accrue nor be created in such land and in that event such land could not be used for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient or ancillary thereto. Sub-section (24) of sec. 5 of the Act defines "land" for the purposes of the Act, as including land let or held for agricaltural purposes or for purpose subservient thereto or as grove land or for pasturage or land covered with water, which may be used for the purpose of irrigation or growing Shinghara or other similar produce, but excluding Abadi land.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was triable by a revenue court and was covered by the provisions of sec. 91 of the Act, which is a residuary provision relating to suits for declaration which should be filed in revenue courts. Section 91 of the Act provides that any person may sue for a declaration of "all or any of his rights conferred by this Act" and not otherwise provided for". Now, the important question is as to whether the declaratian that has been sought in the present suit is in respect of any ri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document