MOHAMMED AHMED ANSARI,J. - (1.)This revision petition is again order of the lower appellate Court dismissing the miscellaneous appeal by the plaintiff. The petitioner had filed a suit to evict the respondent on the allegation of the defendant being a trespasser. In the written statement several plea were taken, one of which being that the suit was not cognisable by the civil court and can be ideal only by the revenue authorities. The trial Court had decided most of the issues in favour of the petitioner but rejected the plain on the ground that the dispute was entertainable only by the revenue authorities. In the miscellaneous appeal the lower appellate Court has not decided the correctness of the other findings by the trial Judge on the several issues. It has only sustained the conclusion of the suit not being cognisable by the civil Courts. In support of its decision it has relied on section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, The section reads as follow:-
"Any person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully on to possession of any land:

(a) The transfer of which either of by the Act of parties or by the operations of low is invalid under the provisions of this Act, or

(b) The management of which has been assumed under the said provisions or.

(c) To the use and occupation of which he is not entitled under the said provisions, may if the said provisions do not provide for the eviction of such person, be summarily evicted by the collectors."

(2.)We think the interpretation placed on the aforesaid section is not correct. The general rule is that where a tribunal is indicated in any Act, it is for the purpose of determining the rights and liabilities which arise under the Act; and the jurisdiction of the tribunal for such purposes is exclusive. But where the claim put forward is not concerning any matter covered by the statute in such circumstances the controversy, is not outside the jurisdiction of the civil Courts. Obviously section 98 contemplates some adjudications on either a transfer being illegal due to the provisions of the Act, or the management assumed under the provisions of the Act. The section further contemplates entertainment of a complaint that the possession of the land is not under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. In each clause, therefore, a decision concerning some matter covered by the provisions of the Act is called for, the last being of a negative character and it should be given by the tribunal indicated by the statute. It follows that where no claim is made concerning any matter covered by the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil Court would not be ousted. The lower appellate court and the trial Court have therefore erred in holding that every case of eviction from land, which is of agricultural nature, is entertainable by the revenue authorities. There is no justification in the provisions of section 98 for such an ouster of the jurisdiction of civil Courts. Therefore, sustaining by the lower appellate Court of the order of rejection by the trial Court is incorrect. We set aside the judgment and remand the appeal to the lower appellate Court to adjudicate on the other findings. Should it find the question involved in the case to be one concerning any matter covered by the aforesaid Act, it would be justified in rejecting the plaint, otherwise the case should be disposed of as one entertainable by the civil Court. The costs of this revision petition will abide the final decision of the lower appellate court.
Revision allowed : Case remanded.