Judgment.- The third defendant, who had obtained a release of the rights of defendant’s 1, 2 and 4, is the appellant in the Second Appeal, which relates to three items of properties, originally situated in Arni Jagir which had been taken over under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act. One Sevugan Chettiar purchased these properties from defendants 1 to 4 under a sale-deed, Exhibit A-1 of the year 1928. In respect of these properties, there was some litigation, and, in pursuance of a decree for possession, Sevugan Chettiar took possession on 14th April, 1945, as evidenced by Exhibit A-6, Delivery Receipt. This Sevugan Chettiar sold the suit properties to the plaintiff under Exhibits A-7 on 24th January, 1957, who has filed the suit on 15th April, 1957, for declaration of title and for possession of the properties. The last date for filing of the suit would be 14th April, 1957, but that happened to be a Sunday, and it was, therefore, filed on the next day, i.e., on 15th April, 1957.

It is unnecessary to refer in detail to all the facts of the case, as only two points were urged in the Second Appeal:

(i) the effect of the combined operation of section 4 and section 28 of the Limitation Act and (2) the scope of section 64-C of the Estates Abolition Act.

I shall first deal with the second point.

After the Jagir was taken over, defendants 1 to 4 applied for patta, and patta was granted to the third defendant by the Settlement Officer. Mr. Vedantachari, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that, by reason of section 64-C of Madras Act XXVI of 1948, which provision was added by section 25 of Madras Act XLIV of 1956, the order that was passed by the Settlement Officer issuing patta in favour of the third defendant had become final and was not liable to be questioned in any Court of Law. The relevant rule made by the Government is by notification dated 17th October, 1955, conferring jurisdiction upon the Assistant Settlement Officer and the revisional authority, for issuing of patta under section 11. Learned Counsel contends that the decisions of this Court, which has taken the view that, either before or after the repeal of section 56 in Act XXVI of 1948, the issue of patta, would not take away the jurisdiction of a civil Court to adjudicate upon competing titles, have not considered the scope of section 64-C. There is no substance in this contention. The principles laid down in the decisions of this Court in Soosai Udayar v. Andiyappan1, and Krishnaswami Thevar v. Perumal Konar2, would clearly govern despite section 64-C. It is unnecessary to discuss those cases in detail, as the principle enunciated in those decisions is clear, i.e., only when the Revenue Authorities can grant a particular relief that their decisions would become final to that limited extent. But if the Revenue Authorities cannot grant a particular relief, namely, relief of possession and declaration of title or relief of injunction, the orders passed or the decisions rendered by the authorities concerned under section 64-C of Madras Act XXVI of 1948 cannot operate as a bar to the civil Court entertaining the suit and adjudicating upon such disputed questions which are out of the purview of the authorities functioning under the Act. If before the repeal of section 56, the position was that a party was entitled to file a suit for adjudication of his title, for possession and for injunction despite any order passed by the authorities under the Act, I do not see why section 64-G should have any higher operation than section 56, which also contained a similar provision. It is sufficient to refer to the following observations of the learned Judge (Ramachandra Iyer, J., as he then was) at page 200 in Soosai Udayar v. Andiyappan1:

" In the instant case the relief claimed is one of possession. Neither the Settlement Officer nor the Tribunal has any jurisdiction to grant such a relief. It may be that for the purpose of granting relief the question whether which of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document