The only question in these appeals is whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to try a suit for possession and other incidental reliefs based on title is ousted by section 56 (1) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. These Appeals have been posted before a Division Bench because Ramaswami Goundar, J., considered that there was a conflict between the decision in Writ Petition No. 670 of 1955, C.R.P. No. 340 of 1956 and State of Madras v. Swaminthan1. Section 56 (1) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, which will be referred to in the course of this judgment as the Act,runs thus:

“Where after an estate is n otified, a dispute arises as to (a) whether any rent due from a ryot for any fasli year is in arrear or (4) what amount of rent is in arrear or (c) who the lawful ryot in respect of any holding is, the dispute shall be decided by the Settlement Officer.”

To understand the implication of this section it is necessary to refer to other sections of the Act. Section 3 (b) provides that with effect on and from the notified date and save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, the entire estate not