VANCHINATHA IYER Vs. RAJAGOPALA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs brought this suit to recover three items of property in Siruvakkam and Konericuppam Villages on the strength of their reversionary right as heirs to the late Samu Ayyar. This suit failed in the first court on a finding by the District Munsif on the question of plaintiff's father's adoption, but on appeal the Subordinate Judge found this point in their favour and gave them a decree for possession on payment of.the amount spent by 1st defendant in redeeming the property from the hands of mortgagees.

(2.) In Second Appeal the 1 defendant has for the fisrt time raised the contention that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction over the suit which was brought for the recovery of the emoluments of the office of purohit in a proprietary estate and we have allowed him to argue this point of law, seeing that if he is right in his contention the decree obtained by the plaintiff cannot stand.

(3.) After the; Full Bench decision in Kandappa Achary V/s. Vengama Naidu (1913) I.L.R. 37 Mad. 548: 25 M.L.J. 42, which supported Mutyala Papayya V/s. Koneri Musammullu and overruled VSerabhaclran Achari V/s. Suppiah Achari (1909) I.L.R. 33 Mad. 448 it must be regarded as settled law that Section 13 of Madras Act III of 1895 confers jurisdiction on Revenue Courts over suits for the recoveryjof the emoluments of hereditary offices falling under Section 3 Clause (4), one of which is the office of village purohit or priest in proprietary estates as well as" in ryotwari villages. At the same time Section 21 ousts the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of such suits.