Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts u/s 56.

These appeals are directed against a common order of remand by the District Judge of Ramanathapuram in A.S. Nos. 36 and 39 to 41 of 1955 setting aside the dismissal on a preliminary point of O.S. Nos. 100, 101, 133 and 134 of 1951 by the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They filed the four suits mentioned above in a representative capacity after having obtained leave under Order 1, rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, on behalf of the ‘Eightkarai Valambars of Idayar, Ariakudi and Vattiyur villages in the Sivaganga zamin in the Ramanathapuram district. The suits were for possession. Their case was that the kudivaram right in the lands in the aforesaid villages belonged to them, that the respondents who were cultivating the lands under them trespassed on the lands between January, 1948 and May, 1950 and that they were entitled to get back possession. The defendants in the Various suits contested the claim and asserted title to and possession of the kudivaram in themselves. They also pleaded that the villages in question have been notified under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, XXVI of 1948 (which shall, hereafter be referred to as the Act) as a result of which the Government alone are the owners, and that the civil Court. had no jurisdiction to decide the questions involved in the suit. Several issues were framed in the suits but the learned Subordinate Judge took up for consideration Issue No. 11 as a preliminary issue. That issue was:

“Have the plaintiffs no right to bring this suit since the suit villages have been taken over by the Government?”

He held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits by reason of section 56 of the Act and dismissed them. The plaintiffs took up the matter on appeal to the District Judge who came to the opposite conclusion and as stated already remanded the suits for trial on the other issues. The main reason for the learned District Judge’s view in favour of the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was that the cause of action for the suits arose before the notification of the villages. The defendants have filed the above appeals against the orders of the District Judge. It is admitted that the villages of Ariyakudi, Idayavoor and Vettiyar were undertenure villages in the Sivaganga Zamindari and that they have been validly taken over by the Government under the Act. The contention on behalf of the appellants is that as a result of the notification under the Act the village vested in the Government absolutely, that the respondents could have no right to possession and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred by section 56 of the Act. The view of the learned District Judge that section 56 would not apply to a case where the cause of action arose prior to the notification under the Act cannot be sustained in the light of the decisions reported in Arunachalam Chettiar v. Narayan Chettiar1, Apparma v. Sri Ramamurthi2 . But the question of jurisdiction would still remain to be decided having regard to the nature of the reliefs prayed for in the suit and the competency of the Court to decide the issues in the case. Under the Act there is no express exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to dispose of suits involving the determination of the question as to who is entitled to the kudivaram but it is contended that section 56 of the Act impliedly bars such suits being entertained. To appreciate the scope of the section it is necessary to advert briefly to the context in which the Act was passed and its provisions. Under the Madras Estates Land Act, I of 1908, the landholder and the ryot had distinct interests in the land and the tenure of the ryot though substantial did not make him the proprietor of the holding. The zamindar or the inamdar was considered to be the landholder. The Madras Estates Abolition Act XXVI of 1948 was passed with the object of abolishing certain types of estates and introducing the ryot