S CHIDAMBARAM PILLAI Vs. MUTHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner sued for a declaration that a sale of his holding held under Section 111 et seq, of the Madras Estates Land Act was legally void and liable to be set aside in consequence of the landholder s failure to apply to the Collector for sale within the period of forty-five days prescribed by Section 115,

(2.) The Munsif held that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit and dismissed it. The District Judge on appeal took the same view.

(3.) It seems clear that a suit of this nature is maintainable in a Civil Court, in the absence of any statutory bar-vide Dorasamy Pillai v. Muthusamy Mooppan (1904) I.L.R., 27 Mad., 94 and Zamindar of Ettayapuram v. Sankarappa Reddiar (1904) I.L.R., 27 Mad., 483. Respondent relies on Section 189 of the Estates Land Act. This makes it clear that a suit for damages sustained in consequence of the alleged illegality would He in a Revenue and not in a Civil Court which is also specifically laid down in Section 213(3), But a suit for declaration like the present one is not one of those set forth in the schedule to the Act It may seem anomalous to give the jurisdiction to award damages for the illegality to the Revenue Court which ordered the sale, and the jurisdiction of setting it aside to the Civil tribunal. But if the view taken by the lower Court is correct, then in spite of the mandatory directions of Section 115, an order of a Collector for sale which was passed, without jurisdiction, must stand, and cannot be questioned; for, admittedly, no suit to set aside the sale will he in a Revenue Court.