The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Civil Court loses jurisdiction to decide the question of title when the land vests in the Government under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9 1-1975 passed by the Civil Judge, Bangalore city, in RA No. 158/73 on his file, dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff on confirming the judgment and decree dated 10-7-1973, passed by the I Addl. I Munsiff, bangalore in OS No. 887/1969 on his file, dismissing the suit instituted by the plaintiff for declaration of bis title and for possession of the schedule property.

( 2 ) SY. NO. 8 of Ranganathapur according to the plaintiff belonged to K. Shanmugam and the members of his family. Raghavappa and Chengalarayappa purchased the said survey number under a sale deed dt. 1 8 1955. They formed several sites and site Nos. 17 and 18 were purchased by one Manikya Mudaiiar son of Narayanaswamy mudaliar from them, under a registered sale deed dt. 20 7 1957. Manikya mudaiiar paid conversion charges in respect of site No. 17 on 23 7-1957. Thereafter the plaintiff purchased and constructed a shed on it and orally leased it to defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 10. The defendant was in arrears of rent from 1-9-1965. The plaintiff filed an eviction petition against him on the grounds of arrears of rent and bona fide use and occupation. In the eviction petition, the defendant denied plaintiff's title and contended that he was a lessee under the previous owner and put the plaintiff to establish his title before the Civil Court and the plaintiff was ultimately directed by the Munsiff under the Rent Control Act to establish his title in a regular Civil Court and hence the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of his title and for possession.

( 3 ) THE defendant resisted the suit by taking up several contentions. He denied the title of the plaintiff. He further asserted that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the title of the plaintiff or defendant as that was the special jurisdiction of the Special Deputy Commissioner under the Inams Abolition Act; the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted. He contended that there was no relationship as landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE trial Court raised the following issues as arising from the pleadings for its consideration: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the owner of the suit schedule property ? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is a tenant in the suit schedule property under him on a monthly rent of Rs. 10 ? (3) Whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by adverse possession ? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 360 by way of damages, compensation or mesne profits and also future mesne profits ? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed ? additional Issue: (6) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit as suit land forms part of Jodi Ranganathapura Village ?

( 5 ) THE trial Court, appreciating the evidence on record, held under Issue No. 6 that it bad no jurisdiction to entertain and decide' the question at issue regarding title as the suit land was vested under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act. It also answered on the other material issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree as stated above, the plaintiff went up in appeal before the Civil judge, Bangalore in RA No. 158 of 1973 on his file

( 6 ) THE learned Civil Judge, raised the following preliminary point as arising for his consideration in the appeal; (1) Whether the learned Munsiff was justified in dismissing the suit on ground. of want of jurisdiction and perfection on title by adverse possession by defendent ?

( 7 ) THE learned Civil judge, reassessing the evidence on record, held upholding the finding of the learned Munsiff that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the question of title with regard to the inam land which stood vested in Government and in that view he dismissed the appeal on confirming the judgment and decree of the trial