TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1934 (8) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s who were mutwallis during their lifetime. They died after the final publication of the record. The heirs or legal representatives of one are represented by the plaintiffs in the action, and the heirs or legal representatives of the other are represented by the defendants in the action. The record stood in the names of Sajjad and Zohad, the two brothers, and the record as it now stands in the form in which I have stated neither supports the plaintiffs' case nor that of the defendants. 2. It appears however that the plaintiffs being the legal representatives of Zohad (the brother who died last), claimed to have the exclusive rights as mutwallis. The two brothers, I should have stated, were entered in the record as the sixteen annas p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r two facts in order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the advocate on behalf of the petitioners and the advocate on behalf of the respondents. I have stated how the record stood at the final publication and the matter stands in the same way at this moment. 4. Whether suo motu or by reason of a petition made by the plaintiffs, the Settlement Officer proceeded to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Regulation. He proceeded to inquire into the correctness of the record and he was incidentally asked to revise it. Now, it is quite clear that the Settlement Officer, when asked by the plaintiffs in this action to enter their names as mutwallis in the Record of Rights and revise it to that extent, came to the conclusion that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7; and the matters which are excluded from the jurisdiction are those set out in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of that section. 6. Then Section 5-A, makes an exception to this extent: that during the settlement if it appears to be expedient that the suit or any issue should be tried by a Civil Court, the suit may be so tried. Then we come to Section 2, the most important section which is material for the purposes of this case, which provides: Except as provided in Section 25-A, no suit shall lie in any civil Court regarding any matter decided by any Settlement Court under these rules. The section then goes on to provide that the decisions as also the orders of the Settlement Officers under the rules shall have the force of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....only one answer to the question propounded in this case, and that would have been that any suit in the Civil Court as regards that would have been prohibited. Now, it is to be noted in particular that what Section 11 prohibits is a suit regarding any matter decided by any Settlement Court. 9. The exception in Section 25-A which gives a power to certain persons to question the decision of Settlement Officer uses wider words: "to contest the finding or record of the Settlement Officer. Now, although it has been pointed out in numerous cases, of which reference need only be made to the decision in Balkrishna Udayar v. Vasudeva Aiyar 1917 PC 71, that this Court in the exercise of revisional powers has no jurisdiction to interfere on a que....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Tauji No. 111 having regard to the fact that an issue had been settled in the case as to whether the interest had merged or not. Without deciding that question it was impossible for him to say that at least the case in respect of Tauji No. 111 did not come within Section 25-A of the Regulation. I have come to the conclusion at which I have arrived on a plain construction of Section 11 of the Regulation. 12. But to repeat and to make the matter a little clearer, the case as regards Tauji No. 111 stands on a different footing, because I have already said it was alleged that the plaintiffs were the proprietors and therefore in any event their case might come under Section 25-A if they established their contention. I cannot part with th....