Civil court jurisdiction barred where tenancy status falls within statutory authorities under the cultivating tenants scheme.

Section 16-A of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act bars civil court jurisdiction over matters the Act assigns to the Record Officer or other empowered authorities, so the question whether a person is a cultivating tenant must be decided within that statutory framework. Section 15 does not create any independent civil court jurisdiction; it is only a rule of evidence making approved tenancy entries presumed true until rebutted or lawfully replaced. Because the Act provides its own machinery for modification, appeal, revision, and record amendment, the civil court could not entertain the suit on tenancy status, and the dismissal was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to decide if a person was a cultivating tenant under Madras Act X of 1969, in the face of the statutory bar introduced by Section 16-A, and whether the presumption under Section 15 preserved any residual jurisdiction in the civil court.

Analysis: Section 16-A expressly bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of any matter which the Record Officer, the District Collector, or any other officer or authority empowered under the Act has to determine. Section 15 does not confer jurisdiction on the civil court; it merely creates a rule of evidence by providing that entries in the approved record of tenancy rights are presumed to be true and correct until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted. The scheme of Sections 5, 8, 6 and 7 shows that the Act contains its own machinery for modification, appeal, revision, and consequential amendment of the record, and the presumption under Section 15 operates within that statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit on the question whether the party was a cultivating tenant. The statutory bar applied, and the dismissal of the suit was restored.

---