( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocate General along with Sri D. G. Prabhakaran, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri P. V. Vidya sagar and Sri M. Venkat Ramana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents and at their request, the main revision itself is taken up for disposal.

( 2 ) IN this revision filed under Section 115 c. P. C. , the petitioners, the State of Tamil nadu and two other Forest Officials of that state, who are defendants 1 to 3, seek to assail the order dated 20-2-2003 in o. S. No. 217of 2001, on thefileofthe Principal senior Civil Judge, Chittoor rejecting the request of the petitioners to decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.

( 3 ) FEW facts, which are necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondents/plaintiffs, who are residents of kanathala tank and surrounding villages, filed a comprehensive suit seeking for declaration that the suit schedule property consisting of 2584 acres is part of Kanathala cheruvu and part of Chittoor District of Andhra pradesh and consequently for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit property. The District collector, Chittoor and the concerned Mandal revenue Officer are added as the defendants 4 and 5. Contesting the said claim, inter alia, a dispute has been raised from the defendants 4 and 5 of the State of Andhra pradesh and the petitioners from the State of tamil Nadu by filing separate written statements claiming that the said area forms part of their respective States. In view of the same, it has been contended that the Civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit itself or go into such questions, in view of the bar as contemplated under the provisions of andhra Pradesh and Madras (Alteration of boundaries) Act, 1959 and having regard to the special remedy available under article 131 of the Constitution of India, since it raises an inter-State dispute.

( 4 ) ON considering the submissions made on either side, the Court below refused to accede to the request of the petitioners to try the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue on the ground that it can as well be tried along with other issues since it involves disputed questions of fact.

( 5 ) HAVING considered the submissions made and on perusal of the material, the only question, which falls for consideration in this revision, is as to whether the Court below was right in postponing the consideration of the issue as to jurisdiction along with other issues.

( 6 ) THERE is no dispute to the fact that even as per the plaint allegations, part of area claimed by the plaintiffs forms part of State of tamil Nadu and the same has been claimed by the State of Andhra Pradesh. The case of the plaintiffs is that having regard to the fact that the very tank is situated within the State of Andhra Pradesh, Ayacut, which is the subject matter of the suit, belongs to them and it forms part of Chittoor District within the state of Andhra Pradesh.

( 7 ) ON the face of it, a clear-cut dispute arises as to the exact boundary in between the two States and whether the subject matter which is admittedly outside the boundary of state of Andhra Pradesh forms part of State of Tamil Nadu. The plaintiffs claim the suit land as the ayacut of the tank, which falls in state of A. P. If that be so, necessarily, it involves the main question as to jurisdiction, especially in regard to the entertainment of the suit by common law Courts. It also involves the basic question as to whether the Courts in Andhra Pradesh can entertain any suit, in respect of subject matter, which is in other state. Further, having regard to the very nature of question involving two States, vis- a-vis, the boundaries, it squarely falls within mischief of Article 131 of Constitution of india. On a reading of the order of Court below, It is found that these questions have not been properly addressed or adverted to, except treating it as if, localization, which being a fact enquiry, needs an e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document