Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Judge of West Tanjore. The District Judge agreed with the Subordinate Judge that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction, but he refrained from entering into a discussion of the merits. He directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The appeal is from this order of the District Judge. In the first instance it came before Chandrasel hare Aiyar, J., who referred it to a Bench for decision as he considered that the judgments of this Court in Appa Rao v. Gurraju (1920) 39 M.L.J. 476 : I.L.R. 43 Mad. 859 and Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi v. Muthudayari (1928) 55 M.L.J. 379 : I.L.R. 52 Mad. 332 had bearing on the question of jurisdiction and were in conflict. On the 20th November, 1946, the appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of Patanjali Sastri and Bell, JJ., who referied it to a Full Bench.

7. In our opinion it is quite unnecessary for this Court to consider the conflict between Appa Rao v. Gurraju (1920) 39 M.L.J. 476 : I.L.R. 43 Mad. 859 and Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi v. Muthudayan (1928) 55 M.L.J. 379 : I.L.R. 52 Mad.332 because the conflict is not on the question whether as it of this nature will lie in the Civil Co rt. The conflict is merely with regard to the effect cf a decision of a Revenue Court on a suit filed subsequently in a Civil Court. What the Court is here concerned with is whether the suit is one which falls within Section 189(3) of the Madras Estates Land Act. A perusal of the schedule to the Act makes it clear that it is not a suit which is triable by a Revenue Court. The Civil Court has the right to inquire into the question of title to land forming part of an estate within the meaning of the Estaes Land Act and to give consequential relief, provided that the relief is not in respect of which the Revenue Court has exclusive jurisdiction.

8. Our attention has been drawn to the following observations in the judgment delivered by Phillips, J., in Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi v. Muthudayan (1928) 55 M.L.J. 379 : I.L.R. 52 Mad. 332:

If the land is riot land, the ryot is bound to accept patta and execute a mushily. If therefore he brought a suit in a Civil Court for a declaration of his right of occupancy, he would be entitled to further relief of the grant of patta. If he asks for this further relief he would have to be referred to ,1 Revenue Court and if he failed to ask for such relief, the Court would not grant a bare declaration. This difficulty has been met by the Legislature by enacting that the Revenue Court shall determine the right of a party to the grant of patta in a suit under Section 55 or 56, and consequently that question must be deemed to be one exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Court.