JUDGMENT
1. A suit was originally instituted in the ordinary Civil Court for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent, on the allegation that a certain lanka land was the private land of the landholder. Beyond the fact that it was lanka land or lanka formation, there was nothing else to show that it was the private land of the zemindar as defined in the Estates Land Act.
2. The District Court of Kistna in which the suit was originally filed came to the conclusion that in the absence of any evidence to show that it was private land, the mere fact of its being lanka land did not take it out of the category of ryoti land. Having come to that conclusion he directed the return of the plaint to be presented to the Court which had jurisdiction to entertain it, which obviously means a Revenue Court, under the Estates Land Act. There was an appeal against that decision to the High Court and the decision of the District Judge was confirmed. The objection to the jurisdiction of the first Court was, I understand, taken by the present defendant himself and his defence was allowed and the plaint returned. On the return of the plaint and after the order was confirmed by the High Court, the plaintiff presented the plaint to the Revenue Court, as I think he was bound to do. That Court, however, quoting the casein Chaganti Atchaparazu v. Raja Yelugoti Kristna Yachandrulavaru 19 Ind. Cas. 225: 24 M. L. J. 402: 13 M. L. T 329: (1913) M. W. N. 378: 38 M. 163, which I think has no application at all to this case, as the land in respect of which the rent was claimed was decided to be ryoti land, has in its turn ordered the return of the plaint. The net result of all these various orders is, the plaintiff is not in a position to know where he is to present the plaint. If he goes to the District Court, it says: ‘Go to the Revenue Court;’ if he goes to the Revenue Court the Court says: “Go to the District Court.” The objection being taken by the same party (the defendant), who by taking the objection in the District Court had an order in his favour directing the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court, namely, the Revenue Court, in the first place he is estopped from raising precisely the opposite contention before the Revenue Court. But apart from that, I think, after the order of the High Court confirming the decision of the District Judge, the Revenue Court was bound to entertain the plaint when it was returned by the District Court. No doubt the Revenue Court may require the plaintiff to make the necessary amendment of the plaint so as to make it quite clear that for the purpose of his suit he was willing to treat the suit land as ryoti land, and that it was not private land. That amendment he may be asked to make now and the plaintiff’s Pleader is willing to do so. Subject to this, I think, the order of the Revenue Court was wrong. I set aside that order and direct the plaint to be taken on file and the case tried according to law. Costs here will be provided for in the revised decree.
