GAVURA RAMANNA Vs. ADABALA RATTAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Except in the cases he which the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is taken away by Act III of 1895, that jurisdiction remains.

(2.) The section of the Act of 1895 which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is Section 21. The present suit does not fall within that section. It is not a claim to succeed to any of the offices mentioned in Section 13. It does not raise a question as to the rate or amount of the emoluments of any such office. If it did, every claim to recover lands would be outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts which is opposed to the words "but such decision shall not bar the right of the claimant to institute a suit in a Civil Court for recovery of the land itself," the last sentence in proviso 11 to Section 13(1) of the Act. A claim to recover lands, in our judgment, does not raise a question as to the rate or amount of the emoluments of the office. Section 21 itself contains an express provision as to any claim to recover the emoluments of the office which may include land. The words "any claim to recover the endowments of any such office" in Section 21 do not apply to the present suit, since the suit is not a suit for lands leased on the ground that the land constitutes part of the emoluments of the office. The general provision in the Act which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts does not, in our view, apply to the present suit.

(3.) In this view it is unnecessary to consider whether proviso (ii) to Section 13(1) applies.