Order of reference to Full Bench (GOVINDA MENON and BASHEER AHMED SAYEED, JJ.) (Delivered by GOVINDA MENON, J.) (9-10-1952) :

The most important question involved in these civil revision petitions, viz., the applicability of Sub-S. 3 of S. 189 of the Madras Estates Land Act as to how far the decisions of Revenue Courts are binding on the civil courts has been the subject of conflict of views in this court. In - Apparao v. Venkataraju, AIR 1920 Mad 558 (A) a Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Sadasiva Aiyar and Mr. Justice Spencer have held that S. 189(3) of the Madras Estates Land Act does not constitute the decision of the Revenue court on an issue regarding occupancy rights arising incidentally in a suit to enforce the acceptance of pattas which are exclusively cognisable by such courts, res judicata in a subsequent suit in a civil court instituted by the landlord for ejectment of the tenant.

At p. 560 Sadasiva Aiyar, J. observed as follows :

"I have carefully considered the several relevant sections of the Estates Land Act (Ss. 40, 51, 57, 153, 163 and 213 besides the section directly in question, viz., 189) and have come to the conclusion that S. 189(3) was not intended to go beyond S. 11, C.P.C. and to constitute the decisions on issues arrived at in the Revenue courts, in suits cognizable exclusively by the Revenue courts, binding on a civil court as res judicata even though the subsequent suit brought in the civil court could not be brought in a revenue court".

2. This decision has been dissented from in - Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi v. Muthudayana, AIR 1928 Mad 1122 (B) where Mr. Justice Phillips and Mr. Justice Madhavan Nair have taken a contrary view.

3. That there is a conflict between the two decisions abovementioned was noticed by a Full Bench in - Swaminatha v. Asan Muhammad, AIR 1947 Mad 276 (C) at p. 277 the learned Chief Justice who delivered the judgment expressed the following opinion :

"In our opinion it is quite unnecessary for this court to consider the conflict between - AIR 1920 Mad 558 (A) and - AIR 1928 Mad 1122 (B), because the conflict is not on the question whether a suit of this nature will lie in the civil court. The conflict is merely with regard to the effect of a decision of a revenue court on a suit filed subsequently in a civil court."

In view of this conflict, it is desirable that the question should be settled by the authoritative pronouncement of a Full Bench. We therefore direct that the entire case be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice for the constitution of a Full Bench to resolve the question.

(Pursuant to the above Order, the petition coming on for hearing before the Full Bench, the Court pronounced the following Opinion) :

RAJAMANNAR, C. J. :

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

5. 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 shares 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 chat by re