The Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on issues required to be settled by authorities under the Tenancy Act, including the question of statutory purchase under Section 32.

APTE, J. :- This second appeal has been referred by Nathwani, J., sitting singly to this Division Bench inasmuch as in his opinion the case involved an important question of construction of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tenancy Act').

2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the respondents for a declaration that the partition as evidenced by the partition deed dated 12th December, 1957, effected between themselves had in fact been effected and that the same was binding on the defendants. They further prayed that the said partition be directed to be entered in the Record of rights.

3. The facts are shortly these:

4. The suit property which consists of pieces of agricultural lands and a house described in detail is in paragraphs 1-A and 1-B of the plaint belonged to Daji Walchand Gujar, the maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs. He gifted this property under a registered deed of gift dated August 22, 1930, to plaintiffs' mother, who in turn gifted the same to the plaintiffs jointly by a registered deed of gift dated May 31, 1946. That is how the plaintiffs became joint owners of the suit properties.

5. Indisputably the lands in dispute were cultivated by defendants 1 and 2 as tenants and they were in cultivation on 1-4-1957, which was declared to be the tillers' day under Section 32 of the Tenancy Act.

6. It appears that on December 12, 1957, the three plaintiffs between themselves partitioned this property under a registered deed of partition dated December 12, 1957 and as described therein, different portions of the lands and the house were allotted to each of the three plaintiffs. At the time the partition was effected, plaintiff No. 1 was major while two other plaintiffs were minors. On an intimation given by the plaintiffs about this partition, it appears that mutation No. 4018 was effected. However, defendants who were tenants on the land, objected to this entry being made in the village records and on their objection, the Circle Inspector directed the entry to be struck off.

7. Against this order of the Circle Inspector, the plaintiffs preferred R. T. S. Appeal No. 17 of 1958 to the District Deputy Collector, but the same came to be dismissed on July 11, 1959.

8. The present suit was, therefore, instituted on July 31, 1959, by the plaintiffs-respondents for a declaration and for correction of the entries in the Record of Rights as aforesaid.

9. The suit was contested only by defendant No. 1 who inter alia contended that the value of the suit property being more than Rs. 15,000/-, the suit was not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, J. D. at Baramati in whose Court it was filed. The other contention raised by this defendant was that he being in possession of the land as a tenant on the tillers' day i.e., on 1-4-1957, he had become a statutory purchaser of the property and, therefore, the deed of partition which was effected subsequent to that date was not binding on him, and that it would not affect his rights acquired by him as a statutory purchaser. Besides, it was also contended by him that the partition was sham and bogus and that it was effected with a view to defeat the rights of the defendants under the Tenancy Act. Lastly, it was contended that the suit for a direction to the revenue officers to correct the Record of Rights and to make an entry in a particular manner was not maintainable in a Civil Court.

10. The trial Court found that the value of the suit property was below Rs. 10,000/- and that, therefore, it had jurisdiction to try the suit. On other issues it found in favour of the plaintiffs with the result that it granted the reliefs asked for by the plaintiffs.

11. In appeal by defendant No. 1, the Appellate Court found that the trial Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the suit inasmuch as the value of the suit property exceeded Rs. 10,000/-. On other points, however, the learned appel