(Unde, Rajaha, Raje Captain, Sri Rajah Velugoti) Govinda Krishna Yachendrulavaru Bahadur vs Kamireddi Ramakrishna Reddi

Sundaram Chetty, J.—This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for an injunction against defendant 1, the

Maharajah of Venkatagiri, from seeking to recover cist on the basis of an extent of 277 acres in the holding comprised in patta No.108 of the

Kanur village. In the first Court the plaintiff succeeded in getting a decree for an injunction restraining defendant 1 from taking any proceedings for

the recovery of cist on anything more than 182 acres and 50 cents. That decree was confirmed by the learned District Judge.

In this second ""appeal it is contended that a suit of this kind was not maintainable in a civil Court. The plaintiff is a purchaser of a major portion

of the plaint-mentioned land from defendant 2 in 1917. The arrear of cist in respect of which defendant 1 is alleged to have taken proceedings u/s

112, Estates Land Act, for the sale of the holding is due for fasli 1333. The principle governing a case of this kind seems to be, that if the plaintiff

had an effectual remedy by a suit or an application in a Revenue Court for averting the injury now complained of, he should have resorted to that

remedy and should not be allowed to seek it by means of a civil suit. It is clear that the plaintiff who has not yet been recognized as the registered

pattadar cannot maintain any suit u/s 112 of the Act, because a suit under that section could be filed only by the defaulter, who should necessarily

be the registered pattadar, and that too on the service of the notice mentioned in that section on him. If that remedy is not open to the plaintiff, we

have next to see whether he had any other remedy under the Estates Land Act. In view of the ruling of this High Court in Ramanathan Chetti v.

Arunachalam Chettiar AIR 1921 Mad 557 a purchaser of a land from a raiyat, though his transfer was not recognized by the landholder, could still

file a suit u/s 55 of the Act for the grant of a patta in such terms as the raiyat would be entitled to receive. If such a suit had been filed by the plain

tiff in a Revenue Court even before fasli 1333-and he had ample opportunity for filing such a suit since the date of his purchase-defendant 1 would

not have been able to take proceedings for the recovery of the cist on the basis of an extent of 277 acres odd for fasli 1333. There was also

another remedy open to the plaintiff even before fasli 1333. u/s 146 of the Act he should have applied for the transfer of the patta to his name. One

course allowed for it is a joint application by the transferor and the transferee communicating to the landholder the fact of the transfer.

It is urged that such a course was not available to the plaintiff, because of the enmity between him and the transferor. It is possible that the

transferor would not join the plaintiff in giving such a notice. But there is another course provided for in the same section and that is a proceeding in

a civil Court for an order of that Court establishing the alleged transfer. There was nothing to prevent the plaintiff from instituting such a proceeding.

If he obtained such an order of the civil Court, a copy of that order might be produced before the landholder who would be bound to recognize

the transfer on the basis of that order. There is no excuse for the omission on the part of the plaintiff to have recourse to that proceeding. In the

face of these facts the principle of the decision reported in Irulappan Servai v. Veerappan AIR 1921 Mad 637 has to be applied to the present

case. As regards the policy of the Estates Land Act, the learned Judges have observed that the policy is to compel any person who has acquired

an interest in raiyati land to follow the procedure laid down in Section 146 if he wishes to be treated as a raiyat and to have all disputes as to

procedure in rent sales inquired into by the Revenue Court. The consequence of the omission to do so would be a bar to asking for a similar relief

in a civil Court by means of a suit and as was held in that case, even as a defendant he would be debarred from impeaching the validity of a rent

sale which he could have otherwise disputed in a revenue proceeding. In this view, I have to hold that no present suit is not maintainable in a civil

Court, but I may observe that it is still open to the plaintiff to take the necessary proceeding as laid down in Section 146, Estates Land Act, or to

institute a suit u/s 55. By so doing, he may exonerate the holding from liability to pay cist on the basis of a larger extent than 182 acres and 50

cents. But he is without any remedy in respect of the arrear of cist claimed to be due for fasli 1333. The plaintiff should only blame himself for these

consequences on account of his omission to take appropriate proceedings under the Estates Land Act in due time.

In the result this second appeal is allowed and the plaintiff''s suit is dismissed with costs in this appeal. The parties will bear their respective costs

in the Courts below. I may note that the appellant could even now stick to his undertaking given in the first Court and receive the cist properly

payable on an extent of 182 acres and 50 cents on the plaintiff tendering that amount to him.