JUDGMENT
1. Except in the cases he which the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is taken away by Act III of 1895, that jurisdiction remains.
2. The section of the Act of 1895 which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is Section 21. The present suit does not fall within that section. It is not a claim to succeed to any of the offices mentioned in Section 13. It does not raise a question as to the rate or amount of the emoluments of any such office. If it did, every claim to recover lands would be outside the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts which is opposed to the words “but such decision shall not bar the right of the claimant to institute a suit in a Civil Court for recovery of the land itself,” the last sentence in proviso 11 to Section 13(1) of the Act. A claim to recover lands, in our judgment, does not raise a question as to the rate or amount of the emoluments of the office. Section 21 itself contains an express provision as to any claim to recover the emoluments of the office which may include land. The words “any claim to recover the endowments of any such office” in Section 21 do not apply to the present suit, since the suit is not a suit for lands leased on the ground that the land constitutes part of the emoluments of the office. The general provision in the Act which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts does not, in our view, apply to the present suit.
3. In this view it is unnecessary to consider whether proviso (ii) to Section 13(1) applies.
4. In the view that proviso (ii) applies we think that the question whether the emoluments of the office consisted of land or of an assignment of revenue was “one of the facts issue” within the meaning of the proviso, Collector was, therefore, bound to decide the claim on the assumption that only the assignment constituted the emoluments. The Collector not having done so, the right of suit to establish the claim, to the land remains, unaffected. The effect of the words “but such decision &c.” is to preserve the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts even in cases where the Collector decided the claim on the assumption and not to oust the jurisdiction, in cases where he did not. Section 13 is air enabling section conferring jurisdiction on. Revenue Courts and, by itself, cannot bust, jurisdiction which would otherwise exist. This view is hot inconsistent with the decision of the Full Bench in Kesaram Narasimhulu v. Narasimhulu Patnaidu 30 M. 126. As in our opinion Section 21 does not bar the suit, we must set aside the decrees of the Courts below and send the case back to the Court of first instance to be disposed of according to law. We desire to point out that this decision does not entitle the plaintiff to re-open the question as to the assignment of revenue forming part of the emoluments of the office.
5. The decree of the Collector must be regarded as binding to that extent.
6. Costs will abide the event.
