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 notified shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free from all encumbrances. Under clause (c) of the same section all rights and interests created in or over the estate before the notified date by the principal or any other landholder shall, as against the Government cease and determine and under clause (d) the Government may, after removing any obstruction that may may be offered, forthwith take possession of the estate and all accounts, etc., relating to the estate. There is a proviso to clause (d) which is important. It runs thus:

“Provided that the Government shall not dispossess any person of any land in the estate in respect of which they consider that he is prima facie entitled to a ryotwari patta:

(i) If such person is a ryot, pending the decision of the Settlement Officer as to whether he is actually entitled to such patta;

(ii) if such person is a landholder, pending the decision of the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal on appeal, if any, to it, as to whether he is actually entitled to such patta.”

Clause (e) makes it clear that no person shall be entitled to any rights and privileges except those which are recognised or conferred on him by or under the Act. Under section 11 every ryot in an estate is entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of all ryoti lands which immediately before the notified date were properly included or ought to have been properly included in his holding and which are not lands of a particular description. Section 12 confers rights on the landholder to obtain a ryotwari patta in respect of private lands and other lands falling under clause (b) (i), (ii) and (iii) which it is not necessary to quote. Section 13 deals with lands in an inam estate in which the landholder is entitled to a ryotwari patta. The Settlement Officer is the authority to examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which the landholder claims a ryotwari patta under section 12, 13, or 14. Section 56 occurs among the miscellaneous provisions of the Act. Though in terms section 56 confers on the Settlement Officer the power to decide a dispute as to who the lawful ryot of any holding is, there is no corresponding provision expressly taking away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Section 65 no doubt bars the jurisdiction of Courts in certain cases; but that is more in the nature of an immunity section.

Having regard to the material provisions of the Act and having regard to the express languages of such provisions and without referring to any decided authority we are of opinion that clause (c) in section 56, sub-section (1) of the Act refers only to a dispute as to rights under the Act, that is, the right to obtain a ryotwari patta. The decision of the Settlement Officer would be necessary in case of a dispute to work out