1. This Civil Revision Application challenges order dated 22 February 2005 made by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara, holding that it has jurisdiction to try the suit instituted by the respondent no. 1 – original plaintiff.

2. The petitioner – original defendant no. 1 relying inter alia upon the Bombay Rent-Free Estates Act, 1852 (Bombay Act XI of 1952), the Exemptions from Land Revenue (I) of 1863 (Bombay Act No.II of 1863) and Exemptions from Land Revenue (No.II) Act, 1863 (Bombay Act VII of 1863), by his application dated 5 July 2003, had urged that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was expressly, or in any case impliedly barred, since the suit properties which form the subject matter of Special Civil Suit No. 16 of 2003 were 'Saranjam Properties' and raised questions as to entitlement thereof. A preliminary issue was framed under Section 9A of the CPC (as applicable to the State of Maharashtra) and by the impugned order dated 22 February 2005, the Civil Court, has answered the same against the petitioner – defendant no. 1. Hence, the present Civil Revision Application.

3. Mr. Patwardhan, the learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions in support of the Civil Revision Application:-

(A) Since the plaint itself admits that the suit properties are 'Saranjam Properties' granted by the State to the father of the petitioner late Maharaja Pratapsinha Raje under the Bombay Saranjam, Jahagir and other Inams of Political Nature Resolution Rules, 1952, any disputes with regard to adjudication of title to said properties have to be necessarily resolved under the provisions of Bombay Act II of 1852, Bombay Act II of 1863, Bombay Act VII of 1863. The said Acts, which continue in force, not only expressly bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, but also provide for adjudicatory mechanism to investigate and determine such issues in respect of 'Sanjam Properties'. Statutory finality is accorded to the decisions of Authorities under the said Acts. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit of such nature is expressly barred or in any case impliedly barred.

(B) In any case, the suit as instituted, raises disputes arising out of treaties, agreements or sanads to which the Government of Dominion of India or its predecessor and the Ruler of an Indian State is a party. Therefore, under Article 363 of the Constitution of India, there is a constitutional bar to interference by any Courts to entertain any dispute in respect of any right accruing under such treaty, agreement and sanad. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Dr. Karan Singh vs. State of J & K & Anr. (2004) 5 SCC 698) and Draupadi Devi & Ors., vs. Union of India & Ors., (2004) 11 SCC 425).

4. Mr. Vijay Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 – plaintiff, at the outset submitted that the submission by reference to Article 363 of the Constitution of India was never raised by the petitioners, either in the application seeking framing of preliminary issue or, in the course of submissions before the learned Civil Judge, which culminated into making of the impugned order dated 22 February 2005. In any case, Mr. Patil submitted that the dispute as raised in the suit, does not pertain to any rights or obligations arising out of any treaty, agreement or sanad. Further and in any case, the “State of Satara” does not answer the definition of the expression of “Indian State” as contained in Article 363 (2)(a) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Patil made reference to the 'Doctrine of Lapse' in this regard. Accordingly, Mr. Patil submitted that there is no question of the bar under Article 363 of the Constitution of India, even remotely being attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Mr. Patil, further submitted that the provisions of the Bombay Act VII of 1863 are not at all applicable to the properties involved in the suit. Further, there is nothin