S SUBBA RAO Vs. NPERITMAL REDDY; PMUNIAPPA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These suits were brought to recover rent from defendants, and the question is whether they were rightly field in the Court of the District Munsif, or should have been filed in the Revenue Court.

(2.) The first question is whether the matter is res judicata in plaintiffs favour in consequence of the judgments in the litigation which ended in Civil Revision Petition No. 124 of 1913. There is first the judge-ment of the District Munsif. But it cannot comply with the requirements of Section Civil Procedure Code, unless. it is that of a competent Court; and the competency of the District Munsit s Court is the very point in dispute and can only be determined as regards the former litigation with reference to the considerations applicable to that now before us. No clear authority directly in point has been referred to. But in the circumstances it is not possible to hold that the plea of res judicata based on the previous judgment of the District Munsif affords any separate ground for a decision in plaintiffs favour. There is then the judgment of this Court in the civil revision petition above referred to. But it amounted merely to a refusal to interfere under Section 25, Act IX of 1887, with the District Munsif s decision; and it accordingly did not supersede that decision or substitute any new decision for it. Although, therefore, this Court, as the Appellate Authority from both Civil and Revenue Courts, might have been a competent Court, within the meaning of Section 11, Civil Procedure Code, and its confirming decision as to jurisdiction might have been res judicata between the parties, if the question had been raised in an appeal, the decision relied on by plaintiffs, is useless for that purpose. In these circumstances the res judicata relied on is not established.

(3.) On the merits the Revenue Court s jurisdiction is now alleged on the ground not taken in the previous litigation, that plaintiffs, suing for rent as inamdars under a grant subsequent to the Permanent Settlement in 1802, are land-holders under the Estates Land Act. There is no question as to the law and on the only question arguable in revision, whether Exhibits I, H and III, which refer only to the Hindu year, refer to that year in one cycle or another, we agree with the lower Court. Plaintiffs, therefore, must fail. 3. The civil revision petitions are dismissed with costs. Krishnan, J.