JUDGMENT

DESAI, J.:—These two appeals by Special Leave arise from the decision rendered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing the appeals preferred by the present appellants.

2. A few facts leading to the present appeals may be briefly stated.

3. There was a Zamindari Estate styled as Kottam (Tuni Estate) situated in Andhra Pradesh. The Zamindar inducted the Rani of Tuni, wife of the Zamindar as tenant of the lands which an the subject matter of dose two appeals, in tin year 193). Appellants are. described as sub-tenants inducted on the land by the bead tenant and we personally cultivating the same and for long have been in undisturbed possession of the same. On the introduction of the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act XXVI of 1948, later styled as Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act 1948 (1948 Act for short), the estate vested in the State and the question arose as to who between the appellant and the respondent is the lawful ryot in respect of the holding.

4. It may be mentioned that respondents are transferees from the Rani of Tuni, the wife of Zamindar. The area covered by the deed of conveyance in favour of respondents admeasured 133 acres which included 54 acres of land involved in the present appeals. The respondents filed three separate suits being O. S, Nos. 249, 251 and 253 of 1951 on April 14, 1955 against. the appellants for recovering actual possession of the land in the Court of the District Munsiff-Kakinada. It may be mentioned that O. S. No. 249 of 1951 was disposed of by a compromise between the parties and it is no more the subject matter of dispute in these two appeals. The respondents sought actual possession from the appellants alleging that they were the sub-tenants, the head tenant being Rani of Tuni wife of the erstwhile Zamindar and as transferees from the head tenant they were entitled to recover actual possession. from sub-tenants who had no right to continue in possession as against the respondents. The suits were contested by the appellants on diverse grounds but only out contention survives for our consideration. The appellants contended that in view of the provision contained in Section 56 (1) (iii) of the 1948 Act Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide inter alia the question as to who is the lawful ryot in respect of the holding because jurisdiction to decide this dispute is conferred on the Settlement Officer and sub-section (2) of the Section 56 provides that the decision of the Settlement Officer on the questions set out in sub-section (1) of Section 56 shall be final and not liable to be questioned at any rate in any Court of law. which would imply that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide these questions is ousted.

5. The trial Court decreed the suits in favour of plaintiff-respondents.

6. It may at once be mentioned that the contention as to want of jurisdiction was not raised in the written statement filed in the trial Court. In the first appeals A. S. Nos. 96, 97 and 98 of 1957 preferred by the present appellant an application for amendment of the written statements was moved seeking to raise a contention that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits for the reasons hereinabove mentioned. Applications for amendment were granted. The contention as to want of jurisdiction found favour with the appellate Court. The appellate Court held that as the estate has vested in the State a question arose under the 1948 Act as to who is the lawful ryot ill respect of the holding and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the contention. Accordingly appeals preferred by the appellants were allowed and the plaints in the suits filed by the respondents were ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The respondents preferred appeals to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at that time was that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain t