https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292183 Section 173 of the Madras Estates Land Act gave only a restricted right of suit against entries in settlement records, confined to the specific grounds stated in sub-section (3); a civil court could not reopen the rent settlement on general grounds or outside those statutory objections, and Sections 176 and 179 made settled rent conclusive except to that limited extent. Section 172 was also construed as conferring a wide revisional power on the Board of Revenue, so the fact that it revised an order previously made in appeal did not by itself deprive it of jurisdiction. Any defect in the procedure was treated as an irregularity, not a jurisdictional nullity. en-us Tue, 24 Sep 1935 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Dec 2020 12:00:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292183 Section 173 of the Madras Estates Land Act gave only a restricted right of suit against entries in settlement records, confined to the specific grounds stated in sub-section (3); a civil court could not reopen the rent settlement on general grounds or outside those statutory objections, and Sections 176 and 179 made settled rent conclusive except to that limited extent. Section 172 was also construed as conferring a wide revisional power on the Board of Revenue, so the fact that it revised an order previously made in appeal did not by itself deprive it of jurisdiction. Any defect in the procedure was treated as an irregularity, not a jurisdictional nullity. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 24 Sep 1935 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292183