JUDGMENT

TULZAPURKAR, J.:— These appeals raise a common question of -law for our determination, namely, whether a Civil Courts jurisdiction to determine the nature of the land in respect whereof a Ryot has sought a Ryotwari Patta under S. 11 of the Tamil Nadu Eastates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948 (for short the Act) is ousted or barred under S. 64-C of that Act?

2. The material facts giving rise to the question in both the appeals are almost similar and therefore, it will suffice if facts obtaining in Civil Appeal No. 474 of 1971 are alluded to in details. In this case one Ramalinga Samigal Madam, a religious Math through its trustee Sutha Chaitnya Swamigal filed a suit (O.S. No. 184 of 1959) in the Court of District Munsiff at Manamadurai for declaration of its title to the suit land admeasuring 3.55 acres being a portion of Survey No. 114 and for an Injunction restraining the State of Tamil Nadu (Defendant-Appellant) from. interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the same. The Plaintiff Madam claimed title to the suit land on the basis of its long and uninterrupted possession since prior to 1938 as also under an Order of Assignment (Ex. A-1) dated 29-1-1938 issued in its favour by the Zamindar of the erstwhile Sivaganga. Estate whereby the Kudi right (i.e. right to cultivate) in that land was granted to it subject to the payment of a nominal nuzzur of Re. 1/- per acre and an annual rent of Re. 1/- per acre beside cesses and a Teervapat Cowie Patta was directed to be issued in favour of its trustee Sutha Chaitanya Swamigal. It appears that the plaintiff-Madam applied on 25-11-1953 for a Ryotwari Patta in respect of this land after the abolition of the Sivaganga Estate under the Act and the Additional Settlement Officer merely informed the Plaintiff-Madam that its petition would receive consideration when S. 11 inquiry would be taken up. But subsequently, without reference to the plaintiff-Madam the Additional Settlement Officer passed an order (Ex. B-4) on 25-6-1954 that Survey No. 114 was not a ryoti land on the notified date but had been registered as a Poromboke (village communal land) and, therefore, no one was entitled to Ryotwari Patta in respect of it. Aggrieved by the order the plaintiff-Madam filed the suit for a declaration of its title and right to continue in possession and enjoyment of the suit land, subject to payment of Ryotwari or other cess to be imposed by Government without any interference from the Government. The State of Tamil Nadu resisted the suit or merits by contending that the suit land was communal land and that the assignment or grant by the Zamindar in favour of plaintiff-Madam was invalid as well as by raising a technical plea that the decision of the Additional Settlement Officer that the suit land was Poromboke and not ryoti land was final and the Civil Courts jurisdiction to decide that question was barred under S. 64-C of the Act. The Trial Court as well as the Sub-Judge in appeal accepted the plaintiffs case on merits by holding that the suit land was a ryoti land and that the assignment of Kudi right therein by the Zamindar in plaintiffs favour was valid; the technical plea of want of jurisdiction was negatived and the suit was decreed by granting the necessary declaration and injunction protecting plaintffs possession and enjoyment of the suit land. In second appeal preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu to the High Court the lower Courts decision on the merits of the plaintiffs claim was not challenged but the technical plea of the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Civil Court in the light of S. 64C of the Act was pressed. In view of the importance of the question the learned Single Judge referred the case to the Division Bench who negatived the contention and dismissed the appeal. The Division Bench took the view that there was no provision under S. 11 read with proviso to cl. (d) of S. 3 of the Act for the ascertainment of the character of the land (whet