Maintainability of suit claiming title to property.

This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration of the title of the plaintiffs and the third defendant to the suit property. The plaintiffs are the proprietors of the village of Karaikudi, which formed part of the Zamindari of Sivaganga. The suit site is within the Geographical limits of the said Zamindari. In 1918 in the survey plan it was shown as part of Koppudayanayagi Amman Sannadhi Street. In 1935 on re-survey also it was demarcated as a public street. On 24th January, 1940 the Government issued a notification under section 61 (2) of the District Municipalities Act, 1920, withdrawing the site from the control of the Municipal Council. On 29th January 1944 the Collector of Ramanadhapuram made an order under section 20-A (1) (a) of the Madras Estates Land Act declaring that the suit site was no longer required for street purposes. On 30th May, 1944, the District Collector passed another order under section 20-A (1) (b) (ii) of the Act transferring the same as ryotwari land. The plaintiffs did not prefer appeals against either of those orders. The first defendant herein constructed a Birth and Death Register office on the site. On 26th July, 1945 the plaintiff filed O.S.No. 61 of 1945 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Devakottai for a declaration of title to and for possession of the suit property on the ground that the said site formed part of the Zamindari of Sivaganga and that therefore the reversion vested in them. The first defendant is the Karaikudi Municipal Council. The second defendant is the Province of Madras. The defendants contended that the suit property was a pre-settlement communal poramboke, and that it never vested in the Zamindar. They also pleaded that the order of the Collector under section 20-A was a bar to the maintainability of the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge rejected the contentions of the defendants and gave to the plaintiffs a decree as prayed for. The second defendant, the Province of Madras, preferred the above appeal.

The learned Government Pleader contended that section 20-A was a bar to the maintainability of the suit. The relevant provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act read:

"20-A Subject to such rules as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf, the District Collector may on the application of the landholder, a ryot or any other person interested.-

(a) declare that any land or any portion of any land which is set apart for any of the purposes referred to in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause (16) of section 3 is no longer required for its original purpose; and

(b) by order in writing direct

(i) that any such land or portion in respect of which such declaration is made be used for any other specified communal purpose; or

(ii) if such land or portion is not required for any communal purpose, that it be converted into ryotwari land or landholder’s ryoti land according as the reversionary rights in such land vest under the terms, express or implied, of the land, title deed or other grant in the Crown or in the landholder;". Under part B to the Schedule of the Act an appeal lies to the Board of Revenue against a declaration that the land is not required for its original purpose, or an order directing that the land be used for any other communal purpose, and to the District Court, against an order directing the conversion of the land into Government ryotwari or landholder’s ryoti land.

Section 189 (1) says:

“A District Collector or Collector hearing suits or applications of the 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 cognizance of any dispute or matter in respect 61 which such suit or application might be brought or made”.

The learned Government Pleader contend