JUDGMENT

N.P. Singh, J.

1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendants. The suit in question was filed for redemption of the suit property by the plaintiffs/respondents. It was alleged in the plaint that the property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint had been mortgaged through a registered deed, in favour of the father of the original defendant and possession had been also delivered to him. As the defendants refused to surrender possession of the lands in question, after accepting the amount due, necessitated, filing of the suit.

2. Apart from other defence, a plea was taken on behalf of the defendants that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in question. The Trial Court came to the finding that the plaintiffs had right to redeem the mortgage, and the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On the aforesaid findings, the suit was decreed. On appeal being filed by the defendants, the learned District Judge, affirmed the aforesaid findings of the Trial Court, including in respect of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. It was held that the suit was not barred by Section 99 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act"). The second appeal filed on behalf of the appellants, before the High Court was also dismissed, affirming the findings of the Trial Court and the Court of Appeal, including in respect of the maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court.

3. The learned counsel, appearing for the defendants/appellants, did not question the findings of the Courts below on merit, but, according to him, in view of Section 99 of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court with regard to certain proceeding, the suit for redemption of a mortgage could not have been entertained by the Civil Court and the dispute should have been left to be determined and to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. It was pointed out that in view of Section 8(2) of the Prevention of Agricultural Land Alienation Act (No. III of 1349 Fasli), even a mortgagor had to approach the Talukdar from redemption of mortgage and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Although the aforesaid Agricultural Land Alienation Act was repealed by the Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, even then in view of Section 99 Civil Court shall have no jurisdiction to settle, decide and deal with any question which is by or under the said Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Tahsildar, Tribunal, Collector, the Board of Revenue or the Government. Section 99 says :-

"Section 99. Bar of Jurisdiction.-(1) Save as provided in this Act no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or by the Board of Revenue or Government.

(2) No order of the Tahsildar Tribunal or Collector or of the Board of Revenue or Government made under this Act, shall be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court".

From a plain reading of the aforesaid section, it is apparent that a Civil Court shall have no jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question "which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Tahsildar...". In other words, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been ousted only in respect of such questions which are required to be decided or dealt with under the provisions of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. In view of the express and unambiguous language of Section 99, it cannot be disputed that if it is found that even a suit for redemption has to be decided and to be dealt with under the provisions of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, then Section 99 will operate as a bar on the power of a Civil Court to entertain a suit for redemption.

4. The di