Decision of Revenue Court when binding on Civil Court.

These revision petitions came up for hearing in the first instance before a Division Bench consisting of Govinda Menon, J. and Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. and they considered it was desirable that one of the questions involved in the petitions, namely, the construction and applicability of sub-section (3) of section 189 of the Madras Estates Land Act, should be decided by a Full Bench.

The facts necessary for the disposal of this reference are as follows:The plaintiffs are the proprietors of a village called Bommaluru in the Krishna District. They filed suits against the tenants in possession of holdings in the village for an injunction restraining them from removing the paddy heaps standing on the suit lands until a due division was made of the crop and until the rent in kind payable to the plaintiffs be paid by the tenants-defendants, for effecting a division of the paddy heaps, or in the alternative for payment of the value of the plaintiffs’ share of the crop. The suits were filed in the Court of the District Munsif of Bezwada. The tenants pleaded inter alia that Bommaluru was an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act and they had occupancy rights therein. Anticipating this plea, the plaintiffs alleged in their plaint that by reason of the prior decision of the Revenue Division Officer, Nuzwid, in M.P.No.2 of 1938 that the said village was not an estate, which decision was confirmed by the District Collector and the High Court, the contesting defendants were precluded from raising this plea. One of the points for determination, therefore, was,

"Whether this decision in M.P.No.2 of 1938 of the Revenue Divisional Officer of Nuzvid operates as res judicata as between the parties on the question as to whether the suit land is an estate".

M.P. No. 2 of 1938 was a petition filed by 21 tenants in the village under section 40 of the Madras Estates Land Act for commutation of rent. In that petition the present plaintiffs who were respondents therein, contended 1.ha: Bommaluru was not an estate. The Revenue Divisional Officer decided that it was not an estate and dismissed the petition. There was a revision petition filed against the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer to the District Collector of Krishna who dismissed it. A Civil revision petition was then filed to this Court but this Court dismissed it on the ground that a revision petition would not lie to the High Court. The contention of the landholder is that the above decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is binding on the Civil Court. Reliance is placed on section 189(3) of the Estates Land Act. Section 189 runs thus:-

"189. (1) A District Collector or Collector hearing suits or applications of he nature specified in Parts A and B of the Schedule and the Board of Revenue or the District Collector exercising appellate or revisional jurisdiction therefrom shall hear and determine such suits or applications or exercise such jurisdiction as a Revenue Court.

No Civil Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall take cognisance of any dispute or matter in respect of which such suit or application might be brought or made.

(2) Decrees and orders passed in the suits and applications referred to in sub-section (1) shall be subject to appeal as provided in the sixth column of parts A and B of the Schedule.

(3) The decision of a Revision Court or of an appellate or revisional authority in any suit or proceeding under this Act on a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court shall be binding on the parties thereto and persons claiming under them, in any suit or proceeding in a Civil Court in which such matter may be in issue between them.

(4) The decision of a Civil Court on any matter falling within its jurisdiction shall be binding on the parties thereto and persons claiming under them in any suit or proceeding before a Revenue Court or an appellate or revisional authority in which such matter may be in issue betwe