YANDLURI YELLAMANDA Vs. KUNCHALA CHITAMBARAM (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's suit is for the recovery of his 1|6 share in the plaint property. The defendants contended that the lands in respect of which the relief was claimed were inam lands and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Both the Lower Courts have held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try this suit. The plaintiff has preferred this Miscellaneous Appeal.

(2.) In order to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction or not we have to see what the averments in the plaint are and what is the cause of action of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sets out in his plaint that the plaint-land was granted on Cowl on 19 November, 1897 and it expired with the close of the year, Parithavi, 1912- 194,3, and that defendants 2 to 5 have been cultivating the land along with the 1 defendant. The plaintiff and his father with some of the defendants took possession of the plaint-property and the 2nd defendant instituted Original Suit No. 256 of 1915 on the file of the District Mun-sif's Court, Ongole and obtained a decree, and took possession of the property on 12 June, 1917. The cause of action is set out as having arisen on 19 November, 1897 when the 1 defendant obtained a Cowl in respect of the property, on 6 April, 1913 when the Cowl period expired, and on 12 June, 1917 when the defendants 2 to 5 obtained possession under the decree in O.S. No. 256 of 1916. Defendants 2 and 3 set up various pleas one of them being that the suit lands being service inam the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Subordinate Judge held that the suit was not cognisable by a Civil Court on the bare finding that the suit land was inam- land.

(3.) The question is whether this suit is cognisable by a Civil Court or not. The contention of Mr. Narasimhachariar for the respondent is, that no suit in respect of any service inam-land is cognisable by the Civil Court. Section 21 of the Hereditary Village Office's Act III of 1895 is "No Civil Court shall have authority to take into consideration or decide any claim to succeed to any of the offices specified under Section 3 or any question as to the rate or amount of the emoluments of any such offices or except as provided for in proviso (ii) to Sub-section 1 of Section 13 any claim to recover the emoluments of any such office." If a suit is based on the fact that the plaintiff is the holder of the office and therefore entitled to the land the possession of which he seeks, then that suit would come within Sec. 21. If a plaintiff brings a suit for the recovery of any land alleging that he is the holder of the office and that another person who is not the office-holder is in possession of the land that suit also would come within Section 21. But where a person sues for the possession of land which is his whether it be against a trespasser or against a co-sharer he does not base his claim on his being the holder of the office but he bases his claim on his right to the land. The mere fact that it is inam land does not mean that the cause of action is based on his being the holder of the office. Section 21 has to be read along with Section 13. Section 13 provides for a suit before the Collector " for any of the village offices mentioned in Section 3 or the emoluments of such offices on the ground that he is entitled under Sub-section (2) or (3) of Section 10 of the Madras Proprietary Estates Village Service Act of 1894 or under Sub-section 2 or 3 of Section 10 or Sub-section 2 or 3 of Section 11 or Sec. 12 of this Act, as the case may be, to hold such offices and enjoy such emoluments." In this case the plaintiff does not come into Court for recovery of land on the strength of his being an office-holder and that the lands being the emoluments of the office. He seeks the Court's aid for recovering possession of the property which has been unlawfully taken from him. He alleges that a Cowl was granted in 1897 and that the period of the Cowl expired in 1912-1913 and that the defendants are holding-over after the expiry of the lease that he and his father along with others took possession of the lands. The 2nd defendant filed a summary suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and got back possession from the plaintiff and his father. The main contesting defendants in this case are defendants 2, 3 and 4. The 13 defendant from whom they claim a portion of the land does not seem to contest the suit seriously, though the vakil for the defendants 2 to 4 appears for him as well. The contention of Mr. Narasimha- chariar is that the 13 defendant claimed the land as his and therefore the suit is one for the emoluments of the office. The 13 defendant does not say that all the suit land belongs to him. He is one of the persons entitled to a share of the land and the mere fact that he denies the plaintiff's right would not be sufficient to convert the suit into one for the emoluments of an office. If the contention of the respondent is to be upheld it would mean that even though a man recovers property by a suit under Section 13 of the Hereditary Village Offices Act, if somebody trespasses on the land and asserts a claim to it, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would be ousted. Section 21 does not take away the jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a suit for the recovery of possession of an inam land from a trespasser, or a tenant holding over or from a co-sharer who in order to defeat the plaintiff sets up a title in himself and denies the title of the plaintiff.