Court has jurisdiction over property title dispute, not a revenue matter. Article 225 applies retrospectively.

The court held that it had jurisdiction to try the suit for a declaration of title to the property claimed by the plaintiff, as the suit did not concern revenue matters. Additionally, the court concluded that Article 225 of the Constitution removed the restriction on the High Court's jurisdiction in revenue matters, and this provision applied retrospectively to the present suit.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court in matters concerning revenue.
2. Nature of the suit filed by the plaintiff.
3. Interpretation of Section 226(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935.
4. Application of Article 225 of the Constitution.
5. Retrospective application of procedural law.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court in Matters Concerning Revenue:
The defendants argued that the High Court lacked original jurisdiction in matters concerning revenue or acts done in the collection thereof, as per Section 226(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935. The provision states: "Until otherwise provided by Act of the appropriate legislature, no High Court shall have any original jurisdiction in any matter concerning the revenue, or concerning any act ordered or done in the collection thereof according to the usage and practice of the country or the law for the time being in force."

2. Nature of the Suit Filed by the Plaintiff:
The suit was primarily for a declaration of title to property claimed by the plaintiff, which was disputed by the defendants. The court noted that the plaintiff had no involvement in the payment of Income Tax in this suit, and it was not a matter concerning revenue. The court emphasized that the reason or motive for filing the suit did not affect its nature. The court held that it was not prepared to interpret Section 226(1) in a manner that would deprive it of jurisdiction to try a suit for a declaration of title to property.

3. Interpretation of Section 226(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935:
The court observed that words of sufficient clarity and width in a statute might take away the jurisdiction of superior courts, but a strong leaning exists against such a construction. The court emphasized that any statute encroaching on the jurisdiction of the court is subject to strict interpretation. The court concluded that Section 226(1) only applied to persons liable to pay arrears of revenue or against whom any order concerning the arrears of revenue was directed. The court held that the plaintiff, being a third party with no connection to the arrears of revenue, was not barred from invoking the court's jurisdiction.

4. Application of Article 225 of the Constitution:
Article 225 of the Constitution removed the bar previously imposed on the exercise of original jurisdiction by the High Court in matters concerning revenue. The proviso to Article 225 states: "Provided that any restriction to which the exercise of original jurisdiction of any of the High Courts with respect to any matter concerning the revenue or concerning any act ordered or done in collection thereof was subject immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall no longer apply to the exercise of such jurisdiction." The court held that this proviso expressly removed the restriction on the High Court's jurisdiction in revenue matters, and thus, the bar no longer survived.

5. Retrospective Application of Procedural Law:
The court noted that procedural laws are generally retrospective unless the legislature expressly states otherwise. The court referred to the case of Shiv Bharjwan v. Onkarmal, where it was held that the court must administer the law as it is at the time of the trial. The court concluded that Article 225, being procedural, applied retrospectively to the present suit, which was filed before the Constitution came into force but was heard after its commencement. The court rejected the argument that the provisions of Section 226(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935, continued to apply to the present suit.

In conclusion, the court held that it had jurisdiction to try the suit for a declaration of title to the property claimed by the plaintiff, as the suit did not concern revenue matters. The court also held that Article 225 of the Constitution removed the restriction on the High Court's jurisdiction in revenue matters, and this provision applied retrospectively to the present suit.

---