This appeal by certificate, involves an examination of the, limits, of the respective. jurisdictions of the Settlement Officer/Tribunal and the Civil Court in relation to an inquiry under s. 9(1) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short, Abolition Act) and the effect of the Amending Acts .17 and 18 of 1957 and Act 20 of 1960 on cases regarding such an inquiry pending in or decided by the, Civil Courts. It arises out of the following facts :

The lands in dispute are situated in village Kadakalla, Taluk Palakonda. On June 13, 1950, the then State Government issued and published a notification under the, Madras Estates (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 (for short, Rent Reduction Act) in respect of this village. Subsequently, the Settlement Officer of Srikakulam suo motu made an enquiry as to whether this village was an "estate" or not within the contemplation of s. 9(2) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short, called Abolition Act) and by an order, dated September 2, 1950, held that it was not an 'inam estate' within the meaning of s. 2(7) of the Abolition Act. The Settlement Officer further recorded a finding that village Kadakalla became an estate by virtue of the Madras Estates Land (3rd Amendment) Act, 1936. Against that order of the Settlement Officer, the appellants herein carried an appeal to the Estates Abolition Tribunal, Vizianagaram. The 'Tribunal by its order, dated September 16, 1952 dismissed the appeal in limine, with the observation that the decision of the Settlement Officer being in their favour the appellants had no right of appeal, The appellants then instituted O.S. 47 of 1953 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam against the State Government for a declaration that Kadakalla village was not an 'estate' under s. 3 (2) (d) of 1908 Act, and consequently,_the Rent Reduction Act and the Abolition Act were not applicable to it. The trial court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the decree, the State preferred an appeal (A.S. 668 of 1954) to the High court of Andhra Pradesh.

During the pendency of the said appeal, the appellants instituted Original Suit No. 101 of 1954 (out of which the present appeal has arisen) in the Court of Subordinate Judge Srikakulam, against the respondents herein and others for the recovery of Rs. 15,681/19 as rent or damages for the year 1953 in respect of the lands cultivated by them in the area of village Kadakalla.

The suit was resisted by the respondents inter alia on the ground that the suit village was an 'estate' as defined in s. 3(2) (d) of the 1908 Act, and that it had been so held by the Settlement Officer as per his Order dated September 2, 1950. It was further averred that the defendants not being parties to O.S. 47 of 1953, were not bound by the decision in that case. It was added that the question as to whether this village was an estate or not, was pending in the High 'Court of Andhra Pradesh in appeal from the decision in O.S. 47 of 1953, and as such, was sub judice. The jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge to try the suit (O.S. 101 of 1954) was also questioned. The claim for rent or damages was also resisted.

On January 22, 1958, the respondents herein made an application for permission to file an additional written statement for adding the plea that the suit village is an 'inam estate. On March 17, 1958, the trial court dismissed this application holding that the question %ought to be raised, was already covered by Issue No. 1. The trial court framed as many as eleven issues, out of which Issues 1, 6 and 8 were as follows :

(1) Whether the suit village is an estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act ?

(6) Whether the plaintiffs are barred and estopped to claim rents in view of prior pattas and rent decrees that were previously obtained ?

(8) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the