ABRAHAM Vs. VENKADU

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 ' and to define the scope of Sec. 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 Chamarri 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 Chamarri service in the village of Arthamuru alienated the items covered in both the suits in favour of one Gummalla Abraham who is the defendant in both the suits, under two separate usufructuary mortgage deeds of the same date i. e. 30-10-1927. 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. The first court found that the lands are inalienable and that the bonds are void but returned the plaints for presentation to the proper Court, being of the view that the suits were not maintainable in the civil court. Appeals were taken to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry and numbered .as C. M. A. Nos. 69 and 71 of 1948 respectively. The only question argued before the learned Subordinate Judge was whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain these suits, in view of Sections 13 and 21 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895). Both the appeals were allowed by the Subordinate Judge who held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction in the matter. S. A. No. 1183 of 1949 is against the decision of the Subordinate Judge in C. M. A. No. 71 of 1948 which arose out of O. S. No. 287 of 1947, while the Civil Revision Petition No. 1040 of 1949 is against the decision in C. M. A. No. 69 of 1948. Because the other suit O. S. No. 272 of 1947 was remanded to the trial court for the determination of certain issues of fact, a Civil Revision Petition lias been filed against the order of remand.

(3.) The question for determination, therefore, in both these casts ;s whither the suits are maintainable in the Civil Court. The exact scope of Sec. 13 Of the Act which confers an exclusive jurisdiction upon the Revenue Court in regard to certain matters and the effect of Sec. 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. Venkatasubbiah and Macharayya v. Chintana. In the latter of these two decisions, after a review of some of the Madras rulings in point, the legal position was stated thus: