Skip to content


Pyda Ramakrishnayya Garu and anr. Vs. Kuchipudi Naganna and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933Mad865; (1933)65MLJ775
AppellantPyda Ramakrishnayya Garu and anr.
RespondentKuchipudi Naganna and ors.
Cases ReferredVenkatarayudu v. The Maharaja of Pithapuram I.L.R.
Excerpt:
.....be brought or made'.it is conceded that a suit like the present one to establish the right to attach property is not included in part a of the schedule which specifies the suits triable by the revenue court. as contemplated by the estates land act, an application under order 21, rule 58, civil procedure code, is not a substantive application like the applications mentioned in part b of the schedule but it is only a provision relating to procedure which should be followed when the revenue court has to hear and determine suits, appeals or other proceedings under the act......the 1st respondent put in a claim petition objecting to the attachment under order 21, rule 58, civil procedure code. the 1st respondent's claim after enquiry was allowed by the revenue court on the 11th of october, 1929. before the expiry of a year from that date the petitioners filed a suit under order 21, rule 63, civil procedure code, for the establishment of their claim to the property in dispute. this suit was filed before the revenue court. objection was taken that under section 189 of the madras estates land act the revenue court has no jurisdiction to entertain suits of this nature and that the plaint should be presented before a civil court. this objection was upheld by the deputy collector and he returned the plaint for presentation before a civil court having jurisdiction......
Judgment:

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Deputy Collector of Kovvur returning the plaint filed by the petitioners in the Revenue Court for presentation before a Civil Court having jurisdiction.

2. The facts are briefly these. In Summary Suit No. 100 of 1 26 the petitioners obtained a decree against the pattadar holding lands under patta No. 125 of the village of Anna-devarapeta. A portion of the lands had come into the hands of the 1st respondent by purchase on the 6th of June, 1929. In execution of their decree the petitioners attached these lands and then the 1st respondent put in a claim petition objecting to the attachment under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code. The 1st respondent's claim after enquiry was allowed by the Revenue Court on the 11th of October, 1929. Before the expiry of a year from that date the petitioners filed a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, for the establishment of their claim to the property in dispute. This suit was filed before the Revenue Court. Objection was taken that under Section 189 of the Madras Estates Land Act the Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to entertain suits of this nature and that the plaint should be presented before a Civil Court. This objection was upheld by the Deputy Collector and he returned the plaint for presentation before a Civil Court having jurisdiction. The present Civil Revision Petition is to revise this order of the Deputy Collector.

3. The section of the Madras Estates Land Act which gives jurisdiction to the Revenue Court to hear applications and suits is Section 189. Under Clause (1) of that section 'A Collector or other Revenue Officer specially authorised under this Act shall hear and determine as a Revenue Court all suits and applications of the nature specified in Parts A and B of the Schedule and no Civil Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall take cognizance of any dispute or matter in respect of which such suit or application might be brought or made'. It is conceded that a suit like the present one to establish the right to attach property is not included in Part A of the schedule which specifies the suits triable by the Revenue Court. What is argued on behalf of the petitioners is that Section 189 only lays down a bar on the Civil Courts against trying the suits mentioned in Schedule A and does not say that these are the only suits that can be tried by the Revenue Courts. In support of this contention reliance is placed on Section 192 of the Act. Under this section the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure excepting a few are made applicable to proceedings under the Madras Estates Land Act. Under Clause (a) of the section the provisions of Order 21 excepting a few rules, Rules Nos. 83, 89 and 91, apply to proceedings in execution of rent decrees. It was held in Venkatarayudu v. The Maharaja of Pithapuram I.L.R. (1927) 51 Mad. 774 : 54 M.L.J. 138 that a claim petition under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Civil Procedure Code can be entertained in a Revenue Court in proceedings in execution of a rent decree in such Courts when such decree is not in the nature of a mortgage decree but only a money decree. See also Suryanarayana v. Ratnachendrudu (1932) 37 L.W. 655. An application under Order 21, Rule 58 is not mentioned specifically as one of the applications triable by the Revenue Court in Section 189, Part B of the schedule. Mr. Somasundaram argues by analogy that if a Revenue Court can entertain an application which does not fall within the applications mentioned in Part B of the schedule, it can also hear a suit though that particular suit is not mentioned in Part A of the schedule as a suit triable by the Revenue Court. This argument is based upon a confusion between the scope of Section 189 and Section 192 of the Estates Land Act and cannot be accepted. The section that confers jurisdiction on the Revenue Court to hear suits and applications is Section 189; and suits and applications which a Revenue Court can hear and determine are specified in Parts A and B of the schedule. Section 192 of the Estates Land Act has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of a Court to hear and determine applications. It relates to procedure. It lays down what procedure shall be followed by a Revenue Court under the Estates Land Act in hearing and determining suits, applications, etc., which it has jurisdiction to hear and determine. That section does not in any way enlarge the scope of the jurisdiction conferred upon the Revenue Court under Section 189. It simply deals with the procedure to be followed by the Revenue Court and does nothing more. As contemplated by the Estates Land Act, an application under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, is not a substantive application like the applications mentioned in Part B of the schedule but it is only a provision relating to procedure which should be followed when the Revenue Court has to hear and determine suits, appeals or other proceedings under the Act. I do not think that the decision in Venkatarayudu v. The Maharaja of Pithapuram I.L.R. (1927) 51 Mad. 774 : 54 M.L.J. 138 can be understood as an authority for holding that by force of Section 192 of the Estates Land Act an application not included in the list of applications mentioned in Part B of the schedule is made triable by the Revenue Court. In my opinion that section does not extend the jurisdiction to hear and determine suits and applications conferred upon the Revenue Court by Section 189 of the Madras Estates Land Act. This argument should therefore be overruled.

4. The next argument is that since a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code, is only a continuation of a proceeding under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, according to certain decisions, a Revenue Court which can entertain an application under Order 21, Rule 58, on general principles may be said to have jurisdiction also to try a suit under Order 21, Rule 63. The reply given to the first argument is a sufficient answer to this also. Whatever be the nature of the present suit, since the present suit admittedly is not included in Part A of the schedule as one of the suits triable by the Deputy Collector, the Revenue Court can obviously have no jurisdiction to hear it. It therefore follows that the plaint was rightly returned by the Deputy Collector for presentation to a Civil Court having jurisdiction.

5. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.

6. C.R.P. No. 231 of 1930. - This petition is to revise the order of the Deputy Collector allowing the objection of the 1st respondent to the attachment of the portion of the land under Patta No. 125 purchased by him. As the petitioners have a remedy by way of a suit and as the suit has been filed in time, there is no point in proceeding with this petition. This petition is therefore dismissed but without costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //