Sadasiva Aiyar, J. — The 3rd plaintiff is the appellant, he being the Zamindar of Nuzvid. The defendants in these suits claimed to hold what are called ‘Banjar’ lands as part of their respective jeroyati holdings but had been in their occupation on temporary grazing leases and that on the date of the suits the defendants were in possession as mere trespassers. The suits were brought on the strength of Sect. 163 of the Estates Land Act (I of 1908) in the Civil Court.

Both the Lower Courts found as a matter of fact that these banjar lands were jeroyati lands, that they were treated by the Zamindar from time immemorial as parts of the respective holdings of the defendants which contained other lands admitted to be jeroyati and that the defendants were not trespassers. But the plaintiff argued that by reason of the decisions in certain prior suits brought by the plaintiff (or, rather the person who then represented the interests of the plaintiff) for the enforcement of pattas for a former fasli, the question whether the defendants were entitled to hold these particular lands as ryots must be decided against them as res judicata. For this contention the language of Sect. 189, Cl. 3 of the Estates Land Act is relied on. It is admitted that the matter is not res judicata if Sect. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, or if the principle embodied in Sect. 11 can alone be relied upon in argument because the present suits in ejectment are not cognizable by the Revenue Court which tried the former suits. Hence the appellant was constrained to rely in support of his argument upon what he contended was the true meaning of Sect. 189 (3) of the Estates Land Act.

Now, where Revenue Courts and Civil Courts are thus exercising jurisdiction in disputes between the same parties (one kind of Court in certain matters and the other kind in some other matters) it is desirable that the Legislature clearly sets out in detail the particular matters over which each set of Courts is intended to have jurisdiction and also provides clearly and definitely what has to be done when conflicts arise between the opinions of the two sets of Courts, on the same question when they are dealing with the separate matters within their respective jurisdictions. I shall just quote a few passages from the judgment of Sheo Narain Rai v. Parmeshar Rai(1) (such conflicts having apparently arisen in the United Provinces frequently). “As it is not conceivable that the legislature could have intended that there should be of its own creation two sets of Courts in these provinces each having jurisdiction to determine the same questions of title to land let to agricultural tenants and neither having any power to compel the other to accept its decision by revision or other procedure or by process, we must assume that in all cases in which it is clear that for the purposes of adjudicating upon an application, or making a decree in a suit, it was the intention of the legislature that the decision on the question of title of the Court which was given the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the application or the suit………….. should subject to such rights of appeal as was allowed by the statute, be final between the parties unless the contrary intention was expressed.” Then in another part of the judgment (at p. 280) the learned Judges say “It may be inferred from a long series of decisions………… ..that the opinion was entertained by all the judges who in these provinces or in the Lower Provinces of Bengal have considered the question, that questions of proprietary title to land and of title of tenancies between rival claimants, but not questions as to the status of a tenant of agricultural land, are questions which should be determined by the Civil Courts and not by the Courts of Revenue in the more or less summary proceedings of the latter Courts.” Then they consider the particular provisions of the Act, which had to be considered in that case and arrive at the conclusion that on a particular point, the decision of the Revenue Courts should be treated as final. The difficulties which the learned Judges felt in arriving at their conclusion are indicated by other passages in the judgment (at page 275) as follows:—” It frequently happens that a Court of Revenue and a Civil Court come to different conclusions on the same question of title litigated between the same parties in reference to the same lands. In such a case, which decision is to prevail? Is that decision to prevail which was first given or is that decision to prevail which was given in the proceeding or suit first instituted, or is the time of one of such Courts to be taken up in arriving at a decision which when pronounced will not be binding on the other Court and will be for all practical purposes a brutum fulmen? How is such a decision to be enforced? It is clear that, unless a question of title arising in proceedings in ejectment under Act XII of 1881 had been determined between the parties by a reference to a Civil Court under Sect. 204 of that Act or in a suit instituted in accordance with an order of a Court of Revenue made under Sect. 208-A. of that Act, the Court of Revenue would not be bound by the finding as to title of a Civil Court. The decision of an issue as to title by a Civil Court would not operate as res judicata under Sect. 13 of Act XIV of 1882 as to the same question of title in proceedings under Sects. 36 and 39 of Act XII of 1881, although between the same parties and relating to the same land; and. similarly a decision of a Court of Revenue under Sect. 39 of Act XII of 1881 adverse to the application under that section contesting the liability of the person upon whom a notice of ejectment had been served would not operate as res judicata under Sect. 13 of Act XIV of 1882 in a suit for ejectment in a Civil Court between the same parties, the Court of Revenue not having jurisdiction to try a suit to eject a trespasser, and a Civil Court not having jurisdiction to try an application under Sect. 39 of Act XII of 1881 contesting liability to ejectment.” At page 273, they say “This is one of that class of cases which exemplifies the mischief which arises when the jurisdiction of courts created by the legislature is not plainly and explicitly and sharply defined. That mischief is intensified when as in these provinces, there are two sets of Courts, the Courts of Revenue and the Civil Courts, each having in some matters exclusive jurisdiction, whilst as to other matters the question as to which of such Courts has exclusive jurisdiction depends, not upon plain and explicit language of the legislature but upon inferences to be drawn from a painstaking examination of a variety of sections in an Act and upon general principles of jurisprudence upon which it is assumed that the legislature has acted.”

Having made the above quotations to indicate the difficulties created by the legislature, I shall approach the consideration of this case with reference to certain general principles of jurisprudence. Civil Courts have got unlimited jurisdiction over Civil rights except when such jurisdiction is expressly taken away and conferred upon another kind of Court. Hence provisions of statutes taking away or restricting the jurisdiction of Civil Courts ought to be strictly construed. Further, it is the duty of Special Courts having restricted jurisdiction to respect and follow the decisions of ordinary Civil Courts on matters of title to land and on such important questions as questions relating to status, and rights, even though the former Courts have jurisdiction to decide such important questions incidentally, when dealing with special matters which have been placed by the Legislature within their exclusive jurisdiction. That duty is recognised expressly by the legislature in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and in the Possession Chapter of the Criminal Procedure Code. That duty has been enforced by the decisions of this Court in cases arising under the Maintenance Chapter of the Criminal Procedure Code. Sect. 213, Cl. 3 of the Estates Land Act also recognises that general principle. No doubt, in the absence of a decision of a Civil Court on a question of title the principle embodied in Sect. 11, Civil Procedure Code though not that section itself (because that section is not one of the sections made applicable to the Revenue Courts expressly by Sect. 192 of the Estates Land Act) would apply and a Revenue Court deciding a subsequent suit ought to accept the findings (even incidental by necessary findings) of the same Court in the former suit. See Bayyan Naidu v. Suryanarayana, Venkatachalapati v. Krishna(2). But (1) if a question of title arises in a Revenue Court for the first time in that Court incidentally and is decided in one way, (2) if it then arose in a Civil Court and was decided in the opposite way and (3) if it again arose in the Revenue Court in a third suit exclusively cognizable by that Court, the Revenue Court in my opinion, should, on this third occasion respect the decision of the Civil Court given on the second occasion and not follow its own finding in the first suit. I have carefully considered the several relevant sections of the Estates Land Act (Sects. 40, 51, 57, 153, 163 and 213 besides the section directly in question namely 189) and have come to the conclusion that Sect. 189 (3) was not intended to go beyond Sect. 11 Civil Procedure Code and to constitute the decisions on issues arrived at in the Revenue Court in suits cognisable exclusively by the Revenue Courts binding on the Civil Court as res judicata, even though the subsequent suit brought in the Civil Court could not be brought in a Revenue Court. That principle seems to me to follow the observations found in Subbanna Achariar v. Gopalakrishna Achariar(3), Chidambaram Pillai v. Muthuammal(4), Gouse Mohideen Sahib v. Muthialu Chettiar(5) and also S.A No. 1002 of 1916, I do not think it is necessary to elaborate the matter, because I am glad to find that the question was considered so recently as last week in S. A. No. 769 of 1919 by a Division Bench of this Court (Ayling and Coutts Trotter, JJ.) The learned judges held that the decision of a Revenue Court on the question whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed or not was not res judicata in a subsequent suit in a Civil Court, as this subseqent suit was not congnisable by a Civil Court. Sect. 189, Cl. 3 was quoted before the learned judges butthey held that it did not extend the scope of the doctrine of res judicata in favour of the decisions of Revenue Courts beyond what was enacted in Sect. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

As I said already, I think it is the duty of the legislature to make the provisions in the Madras Estates Land Act on these points more clear and definite. I might even say that whenever the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied in a Revenue Court, or question of title which cannot be finally decided by a Revenue Court is raised in that Court, provision ought to be made to stay the proceedings in the Revenue Court, till that matter is finally decided by a suit in a Civil Court. I shall just quote what the Allahabad High Court has said on this matter (modifying the language of the learned judges slightly because they were dealing with a different statement). “In our opinion whenever in suits…………or applications exclusively cognisable by a Revenue Court, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or between those through whom they claim had not been admitted,……it should be compulsory on the Court of Revenue to pass an order staying the proceedings before it for a limited time, within which the party denying that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed might bring a suit in a Civil Court to determine the question of title. If no such suit should have been brought within a limited time the Court of Revenue should without further enquiry decide finally the question of title against the party who had denied that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed. If such suit were brought, the Court of Revenue should be bound to accept the result of that suit, as determining the question of title whether the suit was determined in the Civil Court by a dismissal for default or upon an adjudication on the questions of title.”

In the result I agree with the Lower Court's conclusion on the question of res judicata argued before us and would therefore dismiss these second appeals with costs.

Spencer, J.—In these suits there can be no doubt that no plea of res judicata under Sect. 11 of the Civil Procedure Code can be maintained as the Revenue Court which decided the previous suits for acceptance of patta in 1909 was not competent to try the present suits for delivery of possession. But the plaintiff relies on Sect. 189 Cl. 3 of the Estates Land Act which declares “the decision of a Revenue Court or of an appellate or revisional authority in any suit or proceeding under this Act on a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court shall be binding on the parties thereto and persons claiming, under them, in any suit or proceeding in a Civil Court in which such matter may be in issue between them It is argued that suits to enforce acceptance of pattas under Sect. 56 are suits within the exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Courts. With this argument I agree. Similarly suits under Sect. 30 for enhancement of rent, Sect. 38 for reduction of rent. Sect. 40 for commutation of rent and Sect. 55 to obtain patta, are suits exclusively cognisable by Revenue Courts.

Next it is argued that since in such suits the Collector is bound by the provisions of Sect. 57 to enquire whether the defendant is bound to accept a patta and secondly whether the patta tendered is a proper one, and since in Sect. 51 the local description and extent of the land and all special terms by which the parties are to be bound are some of the details to be contained in a patta, a Civil Court is precluded from going into the question whether a ryot who was previously a party to suits for acceptance of patta has occupancy rights in any portion of the land in that patta. I think the District Munsif has given the correct answer to this argument in paragraph 11 of his judgment. He says” In deciding the propriety of the terms of the patta, the question of the defendants' occupancy rights does no doubt arise for incidental decision, but it cannot be said that it arises so directly and substantially in issue for decision that the decision thereon by a Revenue Court can be said to be res judicata in a subsequent ejectment suit in a Civil Court where the question may again directly and substantially crop up.”

I think that the intention of the legislature in framing Sect. 189 was that such questions as those relating to the fairness and propriety of the rate of rent fixed by the Revenue Court which a Collector from his experience of the agricultural condition and the rates and prices prevailing in his District is in a position best fitted to settle, should not be again agitated in a Civil Court, after they have been once decided in suits instituted in Revenue Courts under Sects, 30, 38, 40, 55 and 56 of the Estates Land Act. In the present case I am of opinion that the prior decision having been a decision upon an incidental question as to occupancy rights and not a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Revenue Court is not binding on a Civil Court under Sect. 189 (3), although it did arise in a suit to enforce acceptance of pattas which was exclusively cognisable by a Revenue Court. This view is supported by the opinion expressed in two unreported cases S.A No. 1002 of 1916 decided by Seshagiri Aiyar and Napier, JJ. and S. A. No. 786 of 1919 decided by Ayling and Coutts Trotter, JJ. I agree with my learned brother that these appeals should be dismissed with costs.

C. K.Appeals dismissed.