( 1 ) THE age old acrimony between the civil Court and the statutory authorities to have exclusive jurisdiction over suits of civil nature, has once again erupted in this prolonged litigation claiming adjudication and reeking quietus. The defendant is the appellant. The respondent deiry laid the suit in 1957 for a declaration that the plaint schedule property is an in am land: for delivery of possession thereof and for meane profit or damages for use and occupation at a specified rate.

( 2 ) INITIALLY the suit was decreed on July 28, 1962. On appeal in a. S. 176/62, the appellante Court by its judgment dated July 16, 1965 remanded the matter to the trial Court but was set nought by this Court in c. M. A. 42/66 directing the appellate Court to dispose of the matter on merits. Thereafter, the appeal met with dismissal, confirming the decree, by its judgment dated May, 1, 1969. The appellant filed S. A. No, 729/69. In the interregnum, proceedings under Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Abolition and Conversion into Ryoiwari Act, 26 of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was initiated by the Sulement Officer culminating in the first instance under the proceedings in Ex. B-49 and thereafter under the proceedings in Ex. B-50, granting patta under Section 11 of the Act. They were filed as additional evidence in C. M. P. No. 12507/70, and this Court received those documents; remitted to the trial Court to reconsider afresh. By judgment dated September 30, 1972, the matter was again considered by the trial Court and the suit wai decreed which was- affirmed in A. S. No. 14/73 by the judgment dated April 11, 1977 of the appellate Court. Against this second round of litigation, the present second Appeal has been filed.

( 3 ) THIS Second Appeal came up before our learned brother madhava Rao, J. and in view of the importance of the question to be decided, our learned brother referred the matter to a Division Bench for adjudication, "whethre the civil Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and decide the question relating to the nature of the tenure of the land and also the title". Thus, this Second Appeal has come up before us.

( 4 ) THE material facts to resolve the tangle in this lis are that the respondent set up claim to the lands as owner thereof on the ground that these lands are enfranchised pre-sttlement inam lands and they are not governed by the provisions of the Act but by the provisions of the Andhra pradesh (Andhra Area) (inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) act, 156, (for short, inams Act ). It is their case that the defendant has no right whatever hut a mere trespasser into the proprrty and that, therefore, he is liable to be ejected there from. Pending suit, the deity obtained patta under Ex A-18, under Section 3 of the Inams Act. The appellant resisted the claim contending that the suit property is situated in Madugula, a zamindari estate. The Zamindar granted paltas to the predecessors-in-tiile of the the appellant. When there was a dispute between the Zamindar and tenants, the Zamindar executed a surrender deed Ex. B-l dated August 5, 1929 wherercunder certain lands were taken over by the Zamindar and the ether lands including the plaint schedule properties were given up to chinchilada people. Thus, the Zamindar has conferred title on these lands to those people. From them the father of the appellant purchased the plant scheduled lands on different dates under registered sale-deeds for consideration, viz. , Ex. B-2 dated September 2, 1941 and Exs. B-7, the last of which is dated Janury 5, 1952 and thereby he acquired titla. After tho estate was notified under Section 1 (4) of the Act on March l8, 1953 and taken over, on and from the above date it is the case of the abpellant, that proceedings were initiated before the Settlement Officer, in the first instance under Section 15 of the ACL and orders in Ex. B 49 were passed declaring the lands to be an estate and