The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a civil court has jurisdiction to decide a partition suit for agricultural land, provided no dispute regarding tenancy rights is involved. In such cases, the matter does not need to be referred to the revenue court.
Key Legal Standpoints
- Civil courts can decide partition suits: If a suit only seeks partition of agricultural land and does not involve a tenancy dispute, a civil court has full jurisdiction to hear the case.
- Revenue court jurisdiction applies only in specific cases: Under Section 242(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, if a case involves questions of tenancy rights, the civil court must refer that specific issue to the revenue court for determination.
Case Background
- Petitioners’ Argument: The respondents’ partition suit was pending in the civil court, but since the land was agricultural, the case should have been transferred to the revenue court.
- Respondents’ Counter: The suit was only for partition, and there was no tenancy dispute. Therefore, the civil court had full authority to decide the matter.
Court’s Ruling
After examining the issues framed by the trial court, the High Court found no tenancy dispute in the case. Since only partition was sought, the civil court had jurisdiction to decide the suit without referring it to the revenue court.
This ruling reaffirms that civil courts retain jurisdiction in land partition cases unless tenancy rights are contested, ensuring a clear legal distinction between civil and revenue court matters.
