Dua, J. - (1.) These two appeals (Civil Appeals Nos. 1619 and 1620 of 1968) on certificate by the High Court arise out of the same suit and are directed against a common judgment and decree of the High Court disposing of two cross-appeals presented in that Court and will, therefore, be disposed of by one judgment. The principal question canvassed lies within a narrow compass. It relates to the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain and decide the present suit questioning the legality of the notification Ex. A-13 dated November 2, 1948 reducing the rates of rent in respect of the delta dry ryoti lands in village Kalipatnam under the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act XXX of 1947, (hereafter called the Reduction of Rent Act) . The trial Court decreed the suit in part but the High Court to which both parties preferred appeals held that the Civil Courts had no Jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is this short question which requires determination in these appeals.
(2.) It is unnecessary to state at length the past history of the landed estate in question. The necessary relevant facts in brief may only be mentioned. Shree Raja Kandregula1 Srinivasa Jagannadha Rao Panthulu Bahadur was the Inamdar of village Kalipatnam in Narsapuram Taluka in the West Godavari District. On November 2, 1948, the Government issued a notification (Ex. A-13) under Section 3 (2) of the Reduction of Rent Act reducing the rates of rent payable in respect of delta dry ryoti lands in Kalipatnam village. The Inam Settlement Officer, Vijayawadha, then took proceedings to determine whether Kalipatnam was an "inam estate" as defined in Sec. 2 (7) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948. After inquiry he made the order dated May 31, 1950 (Ex A-1) holding that the suit village was an inam estate. Feeling aggrieved by these two orders the appellant- instituted the suit, out of which the present appeals arise. The short question canvassed before us, as observed earlier, is whether the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
(3.) It may be stated at the outset that the appellant's counsel conceded at the bar that the question as to the kind of grant can only be decided by the Tribunal appointed under the Reduction of Rent Act and Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such a controversy. The suit challenging the validity of Ex A-1 declaring Kalipatnam village as an inam estate was accordingly conceded to be incompetent. Challenge to Exhibit A-1 was thus not pressed in this Court. It was, however submitted that any finding by the Civil Court on the kind of grant would have to be completely ignored by the Tribunal while considering this question under the Reduction of Rent Act. The submission seems to us to be justified.;