The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not barred by Section 21 of Madras Act III of 1895, and the plaintiff's possession of the office was accepted.

William Ayling, J.

1. First respondent in this case was appointed Karnam of the grouped village of Vallur in the Venkatagiri Zemindari by the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 15(3) of Act II of 1894. He sued for a declaration that he was the legally appointed Karnam and for an injunction restraining first defendant (the proprietor of the estate) and second defendant (the person appointed as Karnam by the first defendant) from interfering with his tenure of office. The District Munsif decreed the suit as prayed for. The Subordinate Judge set aside the injunction but confirmed the declaration.

2. In second appeal Mr. Krishnasawmy Aiyar has argued, (1) that plaintiff not being in possession of the office his suit is not maintainable under Section 42, Specific Relief Act; (2) that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred by Section 21 of Madras Act III of 1895.

3. The first objection may be summarily disposed of. The Subordinate Judge finds that at the date of suit plaintiff was in possession of the office; and his finding must be accepted. We may remark that most of the evidence to which Mr. Krishnasawmy Aiyar wished to refer us relates to proceedings after its institution.

4. The objection to the jurisdiction calls for more serious consideration. Section 21 of Madras Act III of 1895 runs thus: "No Civil Court shall have authority to take into consideration or decide any claim to succed to any of the offices specified in Section 3 or any question as to the rate or amount of the emoluments of any such office or, except as provided in proviso (ii) to Sub-section (1) of Section 13, any claim to recover the emoluments of any such office: Provided that if, in any suit instituted under this Act the defendant has pleaded before the Collector that a Revenue Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, on the ground that no emoluments, as defined in this Act, appertain to the office in respect Of which the suit is brought and if on appeal preferred from the decree a such suit, the appellate authority has decided adversely to such plea, the defendant may, within six months from the date of the appellate decree, institute a suit in a Civil Court to set aside such appellate decree on the said ground and on that ground only."

5. The opening words with which we are concerned are no doubt of a very general character, and it is quite possible to interpret them as barring the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to try any suit brought to establish a claim to any of the offices specified in Section 3 which would include the Karnams office with which we are concerned. A much narrower interpretation has, however, been adopted in two reported cases of this Court, that of a Full Bench in Kesiram Narasimhulu v. Narasimhulu Patnaidu 30 M. 126 : 1 M.L.J. 381 : 16 M.L.J. 514, and of a Division Bench in Manoulu Seetharam Naidu v. Doddi Rami Naidu 5 Ind. Cas. 137 : 33 M. 208 : 7 M.L.T. 181 : 20 M.L.J. 91. The Court in each case held that Section 21 only took away the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in cases in which jurisdiction was conferred on Revenue Courts by Section 13 of the same Act. The dictnm in the Full Bench case may be impugned as obiter, but this oannot be said of the decision in Mavoulu Seetharam Naidu v. Toddi Rai Naidu 5 Ind. Cas. 137 : 33 M. 208 : 7 M.L.T. 181 : 20 M.L.J. 91, all that can be urged against the latter is that another line of reasoning might be suggested to support the decision, which, however, was not what the learned Judges relied on.

6. I do not feel at liberty to refuse to follow these decisions which have, moreover, been followed by Sadasiva Aiyar, J., in a recent case Krishnaswami Naidu v. Akkulammal Avergal 50 Ind. Cas. 185 : 9 L.W. 90 : 24 M.L.T. 489 : (1919) M.W.N. 29.

7. We have, therefore, to see whether plaintiff had a right of suit in a Revenue Court under Section 13. I think it is clear that be had not. Section 13 only gives jurisdiction to the Revenue Courts to decide suits brought on the ground tha