Kumaraswami Sastri, J.
1. These are garnishee summonses taken out by the Official Assignee claiming from the garnishees' kist due by them for various faslis from 1318 to 1328. Several defences were raised, one of them being that the Court has no jurisdiction, claims for rent in respect of estates being exclusively triable by Revenue Courts. Section 189 of the Estates Land Act enacts that no Civil Court in the exercise of its Original jurisdiction shall take cognizance of any dispute or matter in respect of which a suit or application might be brought or made before a Collector or Revenue Officer in respect of suits and applications specified in parts A and B of the schedule to the Act. A suit for rent is included in part A (item 8). If the present claim was by way of garnishee summons on the Original Side of the High Court it is clear that it would not lie but the question is whether a Judge exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act is exercising Original jurisdiction. Section 4 of the Insolvency Act enacts that all matters in respect of which jurisdiction is given by the Act shall be ordinarily transacted and disposed of by or under the directions of one of the Judges of the Court whom the Chief Justice from time' to time assigns as a Judge for that purpose. Section 8(2)(b) directs that appeals from an order of any such Judge shall lie in the same way and be subject to the same provisions as an appeal from an order made by a Judge in the exercise of the ordinary Original civil jurisdiction of the High Court. Section 36, which deals with garnishee proceedings, provides that orders made against the garnishee shall be executed in the same manner as decrees for the payment of money or delivery of property under the Code of Civil Procedure, and Section 37 gives the same power to issue commissions and letters of request as it has for the examination of witnesses under the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 90 provides that in all proceedings under the Act, the Court shall have like powers and follow the like procedure as it has and follows in the exercise of its ordinary Original Civil jurisdiction. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Privy Council, in In the matter of Gandas Narrondas, Navivahu v. C.A. Turner I.L.R. (1889) 13 Bom. 520 Clauses (11) to (18) of the Royal Charter are a group of clauses headed Civil jurisdiction of the High Court. Clause (18) after stating that the Court for relief of Insolvent Debtors shall be held before one of the Judges of the High Court provides that
the said High Court or any Judge thereof shall have and exercise within the Presidency of Madras, such powers and authority with respect to original and appellate jurisdictions and otherwise as are constituted by the law relating to insolvent debtors in India.
2. clause clearly speaks of Original jurisdiction of the Judge in insolvency. I am of opinion that the Judge sitting in the Insolvency Court exercises Original Civil jurisdiction. I do not think that the provisions of Section 36 of the Insolvency Act which provides for the determination by the Insolvency Court of ail questions relating to the debts due by third persons to the insolvent can override the provisions of Section 189 of the Madras Estates Land Act, which is a special Act passed in the year 1909. The Presidency Towns Insolvency Act is a general Act passed in 1909, and the legislature must have been aware that so far as the Madras Presidency was concerned a special Act had ousted all Civil Courts of jurisdiction in respect of a particular class of cases. A general Act is to be construed as not repealing a particular one which is directed towards a special object or a special class of bjects. Garnett v. Bradley (1874) 3 App. Cas. 944 and Ex parte Payne (1849) 18 L.J. (Q.B.) 197. The local Government has, under the Government of India Act, power to repeal or alter any law passed by the Indian legislature and there is no question of ultra vires. The proprietors of estates within the meaning of the Estates Land Act all over the Presidency or tenants of such estates may become insolvents and it would lead to obvious difficulties if the Judge exercising insolvency jurisdiction should be the only authority who is to settle teems of pattas and muchilikas, determine rates of rent or questions of commutation or several other questions which the legislature expressly took out of the cognizance of Civil Courts, especially as the same reasons that dictated the policy as regards ordinary Civil Courts apply with equal force to Courts exercising insolvency jurisdiction.
3. I am of opinion that I have no jurisdiction to determine questions as to which the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is ousted by the Madras Estates Land Act and dismiss the petitions with costs. Taxed costs and Counsel in the first of the cases only.