The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is clearly barred under Section 8 of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal Act, 1957.

( 1 ) THE appellant herein is the Deputy Commissioner and Court of Wards Dharwar managing the Savanur estate. It is unnecessary to trace the genealogy for the reason that the plaintiffs were claiming under ghouse Khan grand-son of Mubarak Khan and when the Court of Wards issued notices to the plaintiffs/respondents to pay rent they disputed the competence of the appellant to recover rent claiming that they are the owners of the respective properties in their possession, they having purchased the same from Ghouse Khan. The Court of Wards had assumed management of the Savanur estate even during the life time of Mubarak khan and it was Nawab of Savanur who had assumed management as the Court of Wards and after the merger of the Savanur State in the year 1948 in the Indian Union it was court of Wards at Dharwar that stepped into the shoes of the Savanur Court of Wards and assumed management of the estate. This is not disputed. The plaintiffs/respondents resisted the notices issued by the Court of wards for recovery of rent and contended that they are not liable to pay the rent. The courts below found that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and Ghouse Khan and there- after between the plaintiffs and the Court of wards. While considering this ground they also incidentally referred to the question of title set up by the respondents through ghouse Khan. It is also brought on record that earlier steps were taken under Section 28 and 29 of the Bombay Court of Wards act, by the appellant for eviction on the same ground and the order that was passed by the competent authority was challenged before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal and that appeal was dismissed. The Courts below however came to the conclusion that the said order does not in any way come in the way of the plaintiffs in prosecuting the suit. Accordingly the trial Court gave a decree in favour of the plaintiffs in- the following terms:-"in the result this suit is decreed as prayed for restraining the defendant from adopting coercive measures to recover any alleged rent from the plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties". Thus the decree of the Court below is limited to the extent of restraining the appellant from adopting coercive measures to recover rent. It is not disputed that there was no independent agreement between the respondents and the appellant with regard to the rent or tenancy; their case was because they were tenants under Ghouse Khan they were liable to pay rent to the Court of Wards. In view of the title set up by the plaintiffs and in view of the absence of any such agreement being proved decree has been given in favour of the respondents.

( 2 ) IN this second appeal the points of law set down for determination are:- 1) Whether the suit in the present form is maintainable in view of Section 8 of the Karnataka Revenue Appellate tribunal Act, 1947? 2) Whether the suit abates with regard to plaintiffs 1,4 and 6?

( 3 ) TAKING the second point in the first instance, the trial Court itself observed that plaintiff-1 was reported to be dead on 22-4- 1969 and also dismissed the application of his legal representatives to come on record and therefore it is apparently clear that the suit proceeded without the legal representatives of the first plaintiff coming on record. Obviously the other plaintiffs did not represent the estate of the first plaintiff and therefore though the provisions of Order 1 rule 1 of the CP. Code were invoked to maintain a suit of this nature on the ground that similar questions of law and fact would arise if separate suits were brought that does not save the consequences of the estate of the plaintiff No. 1 not being represented in the suit. Therefore the suit of plaintiff-1 who is respondent No. 1 herein abated in the trial court itself.

( 4 ) IT was reported before the trial Court that the 4th plaintiff died on 6-9-1970. Though a report was also made that the 6th plaintiff also died, the Counse