JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition filed by the appellant, assailing the order passed by the Board of Revenue in second appeal, has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the revenue suit was filed seeking declaration of khatedari rights and no declaration of legal status as adopted son was sought by the appellant. Merely because the defendants in the revenue suit disputed the legal status, there was no occasion for the Revenue Court to go into the question with regard to the legal status of the appellant as the adopted son of late Phool Singh, more so when in other mutation proceedings, defendants did not dispute this legal status. 4. We find that the Board of Revenue and learned Single Judge both have concurrently held that once the legal status of the appellant as adopted son of late Phool Singh was disputed by the defendants in the revenue suit, it fell for decision making as to whether the appellant Laxman Singh was legally adopted son of Phool Singh. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant does not quarrel with the settled legal position that if the issue pertains to declaration of legal suits, the jurisdiction lies only with the Civil Court and not with the Revenue Court. His case seems to be that the issue did not arise for consideration before the Revenue Court. 6. We are unable to accept the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. It is undisputed that the suit was filed seeking declaration of khatedari rights, which, in turn, was fundamentally premised on claim of a legal status as adopted son of late Phool Singh. The defendants however, refuted this claim and the legal status. This accordingly, give rise to an issue calling for determination. As the position of law in this regard stands well settled, in view of various decisions referred to by the learned Single Judge in its order, the jurisdiction with regard to declaration of legal status as to whether the appellant was legally adopted son of late Phool Singh lies exclusively with the Civil Court and the Revenue Court does not have jurisdiction. This legal position has been duly acknowledged under the statutory scheme of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘The act of 1955’). 7. This legal position has been duly acknowledged under the statutory scheme of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘The act of 1955’). 7. Therefore, to the extent of the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue and affirmed by the learned Single Judge that the jurisdiction with regard to declaration of legal status lies exclusively with the Civil Court and not the Revenue Court, we are not inclined to interfere with those orders. 8. However, there is considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that even if it was held by the Board of Revenue and learned Single Judge that the jurisdiction to declare legal status lies only with the Civil Court to the exclusion of Revenue Court, the proper course to be followed was to refer the issue for determination of the Civil Court, and after findings were returned, decide the revenue suit as revenue suit not only involves the determination of legal status but also other issues. 9. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the provisions contained in Section 239 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 which reads thus:- “239. Procedure when plea of proprietary right raised— (1) If in any suit or proceeding in a revenue court, a question of proprietary right in respect of land forming the subject matter of such suit or proceeding is raised and such question has not previously been determined by a civil court of competent jurisdiction the revenue court shall frame an issue on the question of proprietary right and submit the record to the competent civil court for the decision of that issue only. Explanation I. — A plea of proprietary right which is clearly untenable and intended solely to oust the jurisdiction of revenue court shall not be deemed to raise a question of Proprietary right within the meaning of this section. Explanation II.— A question of proprietary right does not include the question whether such land is 'Khudhasht'. (2) The civil court, after re-framing the issue, if necessary, shall decide such issue only and return the record together with its finding thereon to the revenue court which submitted it. (3) The revenue court shall then proceed to decide the suit accepting the finding of civil court on the issue referred to it. (2) The civil court, after re-framing the issue, if necessary, shall decide such issue only and return the record together with its finding thereon to the revenue court which submitted it. (3) The revenue court shall then proceed to decide the suit accepting the finding of civil court on the issue referred to it. (4) An appeal from a decree of a revenue court passed in a suit in which an issue involving a question of proprietary right has been decided by a civil court under sub-section (2) shall lie to the court which having regard to the valuation of the suit, has jurisdiction to hear appeals from the court to which the issue of proprietary right had been referred. (5) A second appeal from a decree or order passed by a civil court in appeal under sub-section (4) shall lie to the High Court on any of the grounds mentioned in section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908).” 10. Sub-section (1) of Section 239 lays down the procedure to be adopted if any suit or proceedings in a Revenue Court, a question of proprietary right in respect of the land forming the subject matter of such suit or proceeding is raised and where such question has not previously been determined by a Civil Court or competent jurisdiction. In such an eventuality, the Revenue Court is obliged to frame an issue on the question of proprietary right and submit the records to the competent Civil Court for the decision of that issue. The Civil Court then, after re-framing the issue, if necessary, shall decide the issue only and return the records together with its findings thereon to the Revenue Court which submitted it. The provision contained in sub-section (3) further provides that the Revenue Court shall then proceed to decide the suit accepting the finding of Civil Court on the issue referred to it. 11. The provision contained in sub-section (3) further provides that the Revenue Court shall then proceed to decide the suit accepting the finding of Civil Court on the issue referred to it. 11. In view of the aforesaid statutory scheme, we are of the view that even if it was a case where the Revenue Court and the learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that the issue as to whether the appellant was legally adopted son of late Phool Singh was required to be decided by a Civil Court and fell outside the jurisdiction of Revenue Court, the procedure prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 239 of the Act of 1955 was required to be followed. The Revenue Court was required to frame an issue and then refer the same to the Civil Court of competent territorial jurisdiction and await the return of record together with findings of the Civil Court. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute this legal position and requirement of Section 239 of the Act of 1955 and the procedure to be followed. 13. Accordingly, though we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Board of Revenue and the learned Single Judge to the extent it held that the declaration of legal status could be a subject matter of consideration of Civil Court and not the Revenue Court, an issue was required to be framed and referred to the Civil Court which is not done. Therefore, this appeal is partly allowed. 14. The Revenue Court of Assistant Collector, Sikar is directed to frame appropriate issue with regard to declaration of legal status and refer forthwith the same to the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and then decide the matter on the basis of the findings recorded by the Civil Court. 15. Since it is an old matter, the reference of dispute shall be made by the Revenue Court at first instance within a period of 30 days from the first date of hearing of the case before it. Parties are directed to appear before the Revenue Court of Assistant Collector, Sikar on 22.10.2024. 15. Since it is an old matter, the reference of dispute shall be made by the Revenue Court at first instance within a period of 30 days from the first date of hearing of the case before it. Parties are directed to appear before the Revenue Court of Assistant Collector, Sikar on 22.10.2024. Once the matter is referred to the Civil Court, it will be open for the parties to pray for expeditious disposal of the case by the Civil Court and return the finding along with the records for adjudication of all the issues pending consideration with regard to claim of khatedari rights of the appellant by the Revenue Board.