The defendants are the petitioners in these two revision petitions which arise in two suits instituted for possession and mesne profits, the main defence being that the suit properties, i.e., certain lands, form part of an “estate” as defined in the Madras Estates Land Act, and therefore Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to try the suits. The suits relate to three items of lands measuring on the whole 7 acres 33 cents in Sankarashanapuram Agraharam. The plaintiff claims to be a minor inamdar of these lands and has instituted the suits for recovery of possession and profits. The village of Sankarashanapuram is an Agraharam and it would be an “estate”, within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act by virtue of the latest amendment whereby Explanation 1 has been incorporated under Act II of 1945.

The learned District Munsif held that the lands which are covered by the suits form part of an “estate” under the Madras Estates Land Act and the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction. An appeal was filed and the learned Subordinate Judge held that these lands do not form part of Sankarashanapuram Agraharam and it is not an inam which comes within the definition of an “estate” or part o