GUMMALA ABRAHAM Vs. LANKAPALLI VENKADU AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal and the connected Civil Revision Petition were directed to be posted before a Bench by the learned Chief Justice of the Madras High Court in order to reconsider the decision in Chinna Nagiah v Pullayya, AIR 1931 Madras 610, and to define the scope of Section 13 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act. They have since been transferred to the Andhra High Court under the Andhra State Act.

(2.) The Second Appeal and the Civil Revision Petition arise out of two Original Suits Nos. 287 and 272 of 1947 respectively. They both relate to what is found to be Chamari service Inam land. The two plaintiffs in O. S. No. 287 of 1947 and the father of the sole plaintiff in O. S. No. 272 of 1947, while being holders of the office of Chamari service in the village of Arthamuru alienated the items covered in both the suits in favour of one Gummala Abraham who is the defendant in both the suits, under two separate usufructuary mortgage deeds of the same date, i. e., 30th October, 1927. The plaintiffs in both the suits question the validity of these alienations and seek to recover the property from the defendant on the ground that the alienations are void in law. The defendant disputed inter alia the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suits.

(3.) The question for determination, therefore, in both these cases is whether the suits are maintainable in the Civil Court. The exact scops of Section 13 of the Act which confers an exclusive jurisdiction upon the Revenue Court in regard to certain matters and the effect of Section 21 which ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such matters has been the subject of several decisions of the Madras High Court. There are also two decisions of this Court, both rendered by one of us sitting alone reported in Krishna Reddy v. Venkatasubbaiah, 1954 Andh LT 47 and