VANCHINATHA AIYAR Vs. RAJAGOPALA AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs brought this suit to recover three items of property in Siruvakkam and Konerikuppam villages on the strength of their reversionary right as heirs to the late Samu Aiyar. This suit failed in the First Court on a finding by the District Munsif on the question of the 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 first defendant in redeeming the property from the hands of the mortgagees.

(2.) In second appeal the first defendant has, for the first 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. Pathipati Vengama Naidu 20 Ind. Cas. 634: 37 M. 548 : 25 M.L.J. 42: 14 M.L.T. 146: 19(sic)3) M.W.N. 600, which supported Mutgala Papayya V/s. Koturi Muramallu 13 Ind. Cas. 322. 22 M.L.J. 156 : 11 M.L.T. 11 : (1912) M.W.N. 7, and overruled Veerabadran Achari V/s. Suppiah Achari 5 Ind. Cas 477 : 33 M 488 : 7 W.L.T. 198, 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 recovery of 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.