Sri Perla Annapurnammagaru and Another vs The Rajah

Venkatasubba Rao, J.—The learned Sub-Collector, holding that the Court had no jurisdiction, returned the plaint for presentation to the

proper Court. On a revision petition having been filed"" before the Collector, he reversed the order of the first Court and remanded the suit for

disposal. The question is, whether the High Court''s power extends to revising the order of the Collector, made by him in the exercise of his own

revisional powers. This question must be answered in the affirmative on the authority oi Paramasvoamy Aiyangar v. Alamelu Natchiar Ammal ILR

(1918)Mad. 76 : 35 M.L.J. 632 and Ramasami Goundan v. Kali Goundan ILR (1918) Mad. 310 : 36 M.L.J. 571 Mr Venkatesa Aiyangar relies

upon the decision of the majority of the Judges in Ippili Raghunadha Patro and Others Vs. Govinda Patro (dead) and Others, but that case dealt

with the orders of the Board of Revenue and not of the Collector and having regard to the dissent expressed from it by several Judges in the later

Full Bench case Rajah of Mandasa v. Jagannayakulu (1931) 63 M.L.J. 450 as also by the referring Judges there, I am not prepared to extend its

application beyond what has been actually decided by it. The preliminary objection therefore fails.

Now dealing with the merits, the principle that a party cannot both approbate and reprobate, clearly applies. The plaintiff (the Rajah of

Vizianagaram) alleged in the previous suit (O.S. No. 223 of 1923 on the file of the District Munsif''s Court at Vizianagaram) that the village in

question was not an estate and obtained a decision in his favour on that point. The defendants there denied his allegation and expressly pleaded

that the village was an estate and a specific issue was raised upon the point. The plea was, ""The land sued for being an ""Estate"" within the meaning

of Madras Act I of 1908, the Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit"", and the issue framed ran thus:

Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit""? After an elaborate discussion of the question, the District Munsif found, agreeing with the

plaintiff, that the land was not an estate, and that the Court had jurisdiction. The defendants further pleaded that independent of the Estates Land

Act, they were entitled to occupancy rights. Even this contention was negatived and a decree was passed, ejecting the defendants from the holding.

An appeal was taken to the District Court and the learned Judge upheld the finding of the District Munsif that the village was not an estate; he

observed, ""The validity of the lower Court''s first finding, that Vantithadi Agraharam is not an estate, cannot be shaken.

But on the second question differing from the District Munsif he found that the defendants acquired occupancy rights and on that finding,

dismissed the plaintiff''s action. I am quite clear that apart from any question of res judicata the plaintiff cannot now turn round and say that the land

is an estate and on the strength of that assertion, invoke the special jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts. To use the words in (1933) L.R. 60 I.A.

266 (Privy Council) Ram Khelawan Singh and Others Vs. Maharajah of Benares,

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed; the lower Court''s order is set aside and that of the Sub-Collector is restored with costs, throughout. The

plaint will be returned for presentation to the proper Court.