Civil court jurisdiction over private property title disputes remains intact; mutation entries do not determine ownership.

Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act bars civil suits only against the Government for acts or omissions of a Revenue Officer where statutory remedies against the State have not been exhausted; it does not exclude a suit between private parties claiming rival title to property. Civil court jurisdiction remains preserved under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure unless expressly or impliedly barred, and no such bar arose here. Mutation entries are only fiscal records and do not create or extinguish title. Protection under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act supports restraint on alienation pending adjudication. The suit was therefore maintainable and the injunction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act barred a civil suit between private parties concerning title to property and whether injunction could be sustained on that basis.

Analysis: Section 11 bars a civil suit only against the Government on account of an act or omission of a Revenue Officer where the prescribed remedies against the State have not been exhausted. It does not bar a suit between private parties asserting rival rights to property. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 preserves civil court jurisdiction unless expressly or impliedly excluded, and no such exclusion arises here. Mutation entries are only fiscal entries for revenue purposes and do not create or extinguish title. The protection under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act also supports restraint against alienation pending the outcome of proceedings.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable, the injunction granted by the High Court was justified, and no interference was called for.

---