Jurisdiction of Civil Court to maintain the suit.

Both these second appeals are by plaintiff in O.S. No.39 of 1979 and O.S. No.143 of 1981, on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The suits were filed by the respective plaintiff therein for declaration of title and other consequential reliefs.

2. Schedule items in both the suits were once upon a time Zamindari Estate, and subsequently they were alleged to have been vested with the Government. Both the plaintiffs claim title on the basis of document executed by Zamindar. But, the Government, after abolition of Zamindari system, as per Madras Estates Abolition Act, declared the lands in question as poramboke lands, and this necessitated the filing of the suits.

3. In defence in both the suits defendant- Govern- ment took a stand that the suits are not maintainable, and that civil court has no jurisdiction, once the Authorities under the Act have classified the lands in question as ‘Natham poramboke’. The identity of the property claimed by the plaintiff was also disputed in the written statement. The cause of action in both the suits was alleged trespass and cutting of trees, for which damages were claimed. The State disputed the liability for the same.

4. On the above pleadings, plaintiff examined witnesses and documents were also marked. P.Ws.l to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-15 were marked. D.Ws.l and 2 were examined on the side of the defendant and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked.

5. The trial court came to the conclusion thatjurisdic-tion of civil court was barred once the lands were classified as ‘Natham Poramboke’ and it was of the view that the remedy of the plaintiff was only under the special enactment, and not before civil court. Even after holding so, trial court recorded some findings on merits.

6. Plaintiff in both the suits filed appeals before, the lower appellate court against the common judgment, which also accepted the findings of the trial court. The appeals were dismissed.

7. One of the main reasons for dismissal of the appeals was that regarding identity of the property, there was no proper evidence. Lower appellate court also assumed that once the classification is made and the properties are treated as ‘Natham Poramboke’, civil court’s jurisdiction is ousted, and the plaintiff can get title only after getting patta from the Government. The findings of the authorities under the Madras Estates Abolition Act were held to be conclusive. It is against the concurrent findings, these second appeals have been filed on the following (common) substantial questions of law:

“(1) Whether the courts below are right in negativing the plaintiff’ s claim on the ground that the plaintiff’ s predecessor- in-title, the Zamindar of Ettayapuram, did not get patta under Sec.12 of Act 26 of 1948?

.(2) Whether the courts below are right in ignoring the fact that ‘Natham’ does not vest with the Government under Act 26 of 1948? and

.(3) Whether the lower courts are right in accepting the extract of evidence tendered in an entirely different proceedings without examining the person who gave evidence?”

8. The position of law is now settled, in view of the I decisions reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Swamigal Madam, (1985)4 S.C.C. 10 and Manicka Naicker v. E.ElumalaiNaicker, (1995)4 S. C. C. 156. In both these cases, it was declared by the Supreme Court that the jurisdiction of civil courts is not ousted, and the question whether the Settlement Officer’s decision is correct or not, can be entertained by civil court. In the first decision, it was held thus:

"The civil court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate on the real nature of the land is not ousted under Sec.64-C by reason of the Settlement Officer’s decision to grant or refuse to grant a patta under Sec.11 read with the proviso to Sec.3(d) of the Act. The finality given under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.64-C of the Act to the orders passed by the Government or other authorities in respect of the matters to be determined by them for t