(1.) The facts of the case are set out in the referring judgments from which it appears that the plaintiff claiming to be the Vatandar for the time being, asked for possession from the defendant who was a mortgagee from the previous Vatandar, on the ground that the alienation could not hold good beyond the life of the mortgagor. The Collector was of opinion that the alienation was good as against the applicant, and therefore, dismissed the application. The question referred to us is, whether, after the Collector, on an application by a Vatandar to declare that a particular alienation is null and void, has refused to make an order that the alienation is null and void, the party aggrieved can file a suit in a civil Court against the alienee in respect of that alienation. It was decided by a Bench of this Court in Somappa v. Naglingappa (1917) S.A. No. 879 of 1915 (Unreported), that an order or decision by the Revenue Authorities that an alienation which had been challenged was not null- and void, was an order under Section 11 of the Vatan Act, and therefore, a suit to set it aside would not lie under Section 4, Clause (a), of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act.
(2.) Again in Madivalappa v. Bhamappa (1918) F.A. No. 229 of 1916 (Unreported) there was in the first place an order by the Assistant Collector that a certain alienation of Vatan land which had been challenged was null and void. That order was reversed by the higher Revenue Authorities, the result being, therefore, that there was a decision that the alienation was good. The learned Judges there held that a suit filed for the purpose of challenging the alienation was a suit to set aside or avoid an order which had been made under Section 11 of the Vatan Act, and the jurisdiction of the civil Court was excluded.
(3.) Then in Madhavrao v. Vmkateah (1919) C.A. No. 758 of 1918 (Unreported) which was an application for review of the decision of the Court on the ground that an order of a Revenue Officer under Section 9 of the Vatan Act had been overlooked, and that the suit was in effect to set aside such order, it was held by this Court that at the time the suit was filed there was no order by, a Revenue Officer under Section 9 of, the Vatan Act, for the order which had been passed by the Collector had been set aside by the Commissioner, and there was no order to the effect that the alienation was good.