( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order of the Vacation Civil Judge west Godavari on May 30, 1981. In the order an injunction is ordered on may 23, 1981. against T. V. Sarveswara Rao, the appellant and his grandson. One of the questions raised in the appeal relates to the jurisdiction of the Vacation Civil Judge under section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil courts Act No. 19 of 1972.

( 2 ) THE subject in the order under appeal relates to statute of the andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act 18 of 1956. V. Kasi Viswanatham approached Vacation Judge with a petition under section 16 of the Act 18 of 1956, that he is a tenant of the land in dispute, that the two persons (the grand-father and the grand-son) are attempting to disposses him, therefore, he scught an order to restrain them from interfering with his possession. Thereupon an ad interim injunction was passed on May 23 and made absolute on May 30, 1981.

( 3 ) THE District Munsifs in the Act 18 of 1956 are appointed Special officers under G. O. Ms. No. 273 Revenue (F) dated dune 20. 1970 the District Munsifs Court when closed for vacation, the vacation officers are appointed under section 32 of Act 19 of 1972. In this appeal it is argued the Vacation Civil Judge has nojurisdiction to take cognizance of petitions under section 16 of Act 18 of 1956. Vacation Civil Judges are appointed, it is arguad, when the District Court, a Court of Subordinate judge or a Court, of District Munsif are closed. The jurisdiction of the vacation Civil Judge may extend to suits, appeals and proceedings pending or cognizable by a District Court, a Court of Subordinate Judge or a court of District Munsif. It is. however, argued the vacation Judge is not a special Officer appointed under the provisions of Act 18 of 1956. Therefore, the order under appeal has been passed without any authority under Act 18 of 1956.

( 4 ) IN considering this objection the words "suits, appeals and other proceedings cognizable by a District Munsif" and the definition of "courts" under section 2 (9) of Act 19 of 1972 have to be interpreted. The District munsif whether he takes cognizance of a proceeding under section 16 of act 18 as a Special Officer or as a District Munsif requires to be determined. If as a District Munsif he can take cognizance of the proceedings under Act 18 of 1956, the Vacation Judge has the power and not otherwise, so the argument proceeded.

( 5 ) THE question thus raised is not easy of answer. In this regard the decision of this court prior to 1974 amendment the special Officer is not a Court as held in Jagannadha Rao V. Venkateswara Rao (1) 1959 a. L. T. 755 is cited.

( 6 ) IN my view, it would serve the purpose of section 32 of the civil Courts Act 19 of 1972 and Act 18 of 1956 if provisions of the two act are reconciled holding a District Munsif takes cognizance of the proceedings under Act 18 of 1956. Otherwise when a District Munsifs Court is closed for vacation there will not be any forum available in law to a litigant for seeking remedy. Therefore, I hold the Vacation Civil Judge had power to pass the order under appeal.

( 7 ) AS respects the merits of the order, Sarveswara Rao referred to three documents, a notice on February 27, 1981, another notice on April 6, 1981 and a letter dated June 17,1980. Twe notices by the grandson were referred, one on October 10, 1980, the other on January 19, 1981, whereas the tenant relied on a receipt dated February, 28, 1981 and the replies that he sent to the two notices by the grand father and an affida- vit of the Village Karnam. These documents were referred by the contesting parties to show that Kasi Viswanatham is a farm servant on- payment of five bags of paddy per year and that he was supervising the land in dispute whilst the tenant asserted that he is a tenant of the jand in dispute, that he is not a supervisor.

( 8 ) THE Vacation Officer, on the basis of the notices on May 18, 1980 took cognizance of his assertion that "he plo