Back
Rajasthan High Court
Dwarka Prasad & Miss Kanta Bhatnagar, JJ.
Jaswant Singh - Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue - Respondents
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 41 of 1984
Decided On : March 22, 1984
Thus in respect of matters covered by the aforesaid items included in the Third Schedule, the Revenue courts alone have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain suits, for declaration of the plaintiffs right as a tenant of agricultural land and for ejectment of a trespasser therefrom. According to the provisions of Section 207 of the Tenancy Act, the jurisdiction of the Revenue court to try a suit of the nature specified in items No. 5 and 23 relating to agricultural tenancies, would be based on the cause of action for filing such suit. The term cause of action though no where defined is now very well understood. It means every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to judgment.(See Mohammad Khalil Khan vs. Mahbub Ali Mian (6). It follows that in each and very case the cause of action for filling of the suit shall have to be strictly scrutinised in order to determine whether the suit is exclusively cognizable by a Revenue court or is impliedly cognizable only by a Revenue court or is cognizable by a Civil court. If more than one reliefs are claimed in the suit, then the jurisdiction of the Civil or Revenue courts to entertain the suit shall be determined on the basis as to what is the real or substantial or main relief claimed in the suit. (para 9)
If the suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession treating the deed as wholly void or a nullity, then a prayer for cancellation of the deed was unnecessary and was not required to be made by the plaintiff, who could ignore the void document. In such cases there was no unsurmountable difficulty in the way of the plaintiff in seeking relief by way of declaration of tenancy rights and claiming possession before a competent Revenue court. The present case is not one in which the alleged sale-deed was admitted to have been executed by the plaintiff or her predecessor-in-interest or that she sought to avoid the same on the ground that she was made to execute the deed by fraud or misrepresentation. The plaintiff claimed in the suits that sale-deeds were not executed by her. In such circumstances the sale-deeds were alleged to be void and not voidable and the same could be ignored by the plaintiff. We, therefore, agree with the learned Single Judge that the three suits, relating to which these appeals have been filed, are exclusively triable by the competent Revenue courts. (paras 21 & 22)
2. The only question which arises in these appeals is as to whether the suits filed, by the respondent No. 3 in each of these appeals, in the court of Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh was properly triable by a Revenue court or was triable by a Civil court.
3. The respondent No. 3 filed three suits, one each against each one of the appellants, in the court of Assistant Collector, Hanumangarh for possession of a piece of agricultural land and claiming a declaration of her right as a khatedar tenant of such land and for recovery of damages. The appellants, who were the defendants in the three suits, took the objection that the suits were triable by a Civil court and that the Revenue court had no jurisdiction. Issues No. 8 and 9 were framed by the trial court in this respec and were tried as preliminary issues The Assistant Collector held that the Revenue court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits. Revision petitions preferred by the appellants before the Board of Revenue were dismissed and it was held that the suits were mainly for declaration of Khatedari rights and for ejectment and as there was no prayer for cancellation of sale-deeds nor any such prayer was necessary to be made, the suits were triable by the Revenue court. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue, all the three appellants filed separate writ petitions in this Court which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated November 18, 1983, as mentioned earlier.
4. It is well settled that the question of jurisdiction ought to be decided on the basis of allegations made in the plaint. There is no doubt that some times the plaint is so drafted as to camouflage the real purpose thereof and as such it has often been held that the substance of the plaint should be considered by the court for the purpose of determination of the question of jurisdiction.
5. In Chandan Mal. vs. Dawar (1), it was observed that the question of jurisdiction must be initially determined on the basis of the allegations made in the plaint and that the substance of the plaint and its main object should be kept in view and not merely its outward form. Modi j., observed in that case that if the aforesaid principles were not kept in view it may be open to a party to evade the liability as to exclusiveness of jurisdiction. However, it was made clear that case should be taken not to introduce anything in the plaint which may not be found there or which may be foreign to its main purpose. In another decision, in the case of Sukhlal vs. Devilal (2) Modi J., speaking for the court, enunciated the true principles, by observing that the plaint as a whole should be looked at and that the substance of the plaint and not its osten-sible form really matters. Further nothing should be imported into the plaint, which it really does not contain, either actually or by necessary implication. Thus, a plaint should be construed as it is and not as it ought to be.
6. In Ratanlal vs. Gram Panchayat Agolai (3), one of us, sitting singly observed as under-
"It is well sealed that the question of jurisdiction has to be decided on 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 substance of the plaint must be taken into consideration ot find out the true nature or the object of the suit."
7. In Shyam Kumar vs. Budh Singh (4) Sachar, J. observed as under:-
"It is well settle
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
