PUTTA VEERANNA Vs. YELLAPALLI MOCHARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was a defendant in a suit brought under the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895). His defence was negatived by the Revenue Courts and a decree was passed against him. He thereupon applied to the High Court for a writ of certiorari, alleging that the Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the proceedings were liable to be quashed. Pandrang Row, J., refused the writ and in the course of his order observed thus: Whether the land itself or the revenue from the emoluments of a village office like this is obviously within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court, and the petitioner has failed in my opinion to show that the Deputy Collector and the Collector of East Godavari had no jurisdiction to decide this controversy.

(2.) The passage quoted above, as has been conceded by the respondent's learned Counsel, proceeds upon a misapprehension. There was no issue in the case as wrongly assumed by Pandrang Row, J., whether the land itself or the assignment of revenue formed the emoluments. The reasoning of the learned Judge cannot therefore be upheld, but still we are satisfied that the writ was rightly refused.

(3.) The facts which led to the suit may be briefly stated. One Manikyam, the village blacksmith of Peddada (a ryotwari village), alienated to various persons portions of his service inam lands. He was thereupon dismissed and his widow Mocharamma was appointed to that office. The defendant as one of the alienees was in possession of a part of the land. Mocharamma brought the suit in question before the Deputy Collector for possession, which was decreed by that officer. His decision was confirmed on appeal by the Collector. The question is, did they have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the appeal under the provisions of the Act referred to above. Secs.13 and 21 are the governing sections. It has been settled by authority that the Act does not contemplate concurrent jurisdiction so that what in each case has to be determined is, whether in view of the nature of a given suit, the Act has vested jurisdiction in the Civil or the Revenue Court to entertain it. Section 13 is the provision which confers jurisdiction upon Revenue Courts; Section 21 enacts in positive terms as to when Civil Courts are forbidden to exercise jurisdiction. These two sections, it has been held, are complementary. In Muvvula Seetharam Naidu V/s. Doddi Ramu Naidu (1909) 20 M.L.J. 91 : I.L.R. 33 Mad. 208, the learned Judges observe: It is reasonable to hold, notwithstanding the apparent generality of the language of Section 21, that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court Under that section is taken away in those cases in which it is conferred upon the Revenue Courts by Section 13.