Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1964 DIGILAW 252 (RAJ)

Khema v. Peetha

1964-12-29

G.B.K.HOOJA

body1964
This revision petition is directed against the appellate order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur, dated 19-9-63, whereby he rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Salumbar, dated the 22nd April, 1963. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this revision are that in a suit filed by the non-petitioners for the redemption of mortgage of agricultural land and delivery of possession thereof, an application was moved by the petitioners before the trial Court to the effect that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for the redemption of mortgage after the enactment of Rajasthan Tenancy Amendment Act No. XII of 1961 as the same was not provided for any longer in the Third Schedule annexed to the aforesaid Act. After hearing the parties, the trial Court rejected the application and decided to treat the suit as one under sec. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in view of sec.43 sub-sec. (3) of the aforesaid Act. Having felt aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur and again pressed the argument that under sec. 207 of the aforesaid Act, only suits and applications of the nature specified in the Third Schedule could be tried in Revenue Courts and as there was no mention of the suits for redemption in the third Schedule, the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to hear the same. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority observed that before the coming into force of the new amendment, there was a provision in the Third Schedule to entertain suits for redemption. It, therefore, held that the present suit which was filed by the non-petitioners at the time when the jurisdiction to try such suits vested in the Revenue Courts, could be maintained there in view of sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act, as the amended procedure was not made applicable with retrospective effect. It, therefore, held that the present suit was triable by the Revenue Court and rejected the appeal. As regards the relief, however, it observed that this matter should be decided at the time when the judgment is delivered in the light of the law applicable to the case. The present revision petition is directed against the above order. Before me also, the learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the arguments advanced before the lower Courts. As regards the relief, however, it observed that this matter should be decided at the time when the judgment is delivered in the light of the law applicable to the case. The present revision petition is directed against the above order. Before me also, the learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the arguments advanced before the lower Courts. It was argued that sec. 206, sub-sec. (4) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act read with sec. 207 of the aforesaid Act placed suits for redemption of mortgage outside the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts, as they were no longer covered by the third Schedule. It was conceded the present suit was triable by Revenue Court in 1958 when the same was filed, but it was contended that in the face of the explicit provision of law, the aid of the General Clauses Act could not be invoked. It was argued that under the law as it stood at present, only those matters lying in the Third Schedule of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act could be heard by Revenue Courts. In reply, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners drew my attention to the D. B. ruling of the Board of Revenue in Kheema Vs. Kheema ( RLW 1964 Revenue Supplement Page 17 ) which is a direct authority on this issue. In this case also, it was contended that a suit for redemption under sec. 43 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act would not lie before the Revenue Courts in view of Act No. XII of 1961 whereby sec. 43 was excluded from the third Schedule. Relying upon the view taken by the High Court of Rajasthan in Nathu Vs. Chuma ( 1958 RLW 300), the learned Members held that a suit for the redemption of mortgage could be maintained in the Revenue Courts and no other Court than a Revenue Court could take congizance of such cases. It was observed by the Honble Mr. Relying upon the view taken by the High Court of Rajasthan in Nathu Vs. Chuma ( 1958 RLW 300), the learned Members held that a suit for the redemption of mortgage could be maintained in the Revenue Courts and no other Court than a Revenue Court could take congizance of such cases. It was observed by the Honble Mr. Justice Modi in the aforesaid High Court Ruling that a suit or application for the redemption of a mortgage with respect to agricultural land is a matter arising under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and though it has not been specifically provided for elsewhere in the Schedule, it is still generally provided for within the meaning of S. No. 35 of the Schedule and is, therefore, a matter with respect to which no Court other than a revenue court can take congni-zance as provided under sub-sec. (2) of sec. 207 of the aforesaid Act. It was further observed that sec.43-A clearly provides for such suits in so far as they relate to mortgages made before the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Sec. 43 of the Act provides for such suits where the mortgages may have been made after the commencement of the Act. Between themselves, these two Sections clearly indicate that the intention of the Legislature was that such suits were exclusively triable by a Revenue Court, and if so, no Civil Court will have jurisdiction to entertain them. In this view of the legal position there is no substance left in the contention of the counsel for the petitioners. A point was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the operation of the bar of limitation. It was stated that the petitioners had acquired ownership by the law of limitation and the plaint could not now be allowed to be amended. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner agreed that no amendment was being sought by his clients at this stage. He only pleaded that the suit should be allowed to survive as originally filed, and stated that the question of limitation was a matter under issue which would be examined by the trial Court in due course. It was also pointed out by him that the learned Revenue. He only pleaded that the suit should be allowed to survive as originally filed, and stated that the question of limitation was a matter under issue which would be examined by the trial Court in due course. It was also pointed out by him that the learned Revenue. Appellate Authority had, in fact, quashed the order amending the plaint which would now be examined on merits and decided in accordance with the law applicable to the case. In this view of the matter and the legal position as clarified above, I find that there is no substance in the present revision petition which must fail.