Civil court jurisdiction survives where settlement authorities decline to decide title-related mutwalli claims in the record of rights.

Civil court jurisdiction remains open where the settlement authorities have not actually and finally decided the disputed entry in the Record of Rights. Section 11 of Regulation 3 of 1875 bars suits only for matters already adjudicated by a Settlement Court, and the force of a decree attaches only to decisions or orders made under the Regulation. Section 25-A operates as an enabling provision for contest by specified persons and does not widen the jurisdictional bar. Because the Settlement Officer and the Commissioner declined to determine the plaintiffs' claim as mutwallis, there was no decided matter to exclude civil jurisdiction, including on the issue concerning Tauji No. 111.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Civil Court's jurisdiction was ousted under Regulation 3 of 1875 when the Settlement Officer and the Commissioner declined to decide the dispute regarding entry of the plaintiffs as mutwallis in the Record of Rights.

Analysis: Section 11 barred suits only in respect of matters actually decided by a Settlement Court, and the force of a decree attached to decisions or orders made under the Regulation. Section 25-A was treated as an enabling provision for contest by certain classes of persons and not as a disabling provision that enlarged the bar of jurisdiction. On the facts, neither the Settlement Officer nor the Commissioner had finally decided the plaintiffs' claim; both had declined to determine the substantive question. In those circumstances, there was no adjudicated matter within the meaning of the ouster provision. As regards Tauji No. 111, the alleged merger of the patni interest with the proprietary interest could not be rejected without first determining the relevant issue, and the Civil Court could not be excluded on that basis.

Conclusion: The Civil Court's jurisdiction was not ousted, and the plaintiffs were entitled to have the issues relating to Tauji Nos. 110-3 and 111 tried according to law.

Final Conclusion: The ruling set aside the jurisdictional dismissal and required the lower court to decide the disputed issues on merits with expedition.

Ratio Decidendi: The civil court bar under the Regulation applies only to a matter actually and finally decided by the Settlement Court; where the Settlement Officer declines to decide the question, jurisdiction remains open.

---