( 1 ) THE petitioners in these revision petitions are common and the question of jurisdiction raised is also common. The petitions, therefore, are disposed of by a common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioners herein are in a highly anomalous situation. NO specific statutory provision has been brought to my notice affording a solution to the problem with which they are faced in these cases. ( 3 ) THE few facts relevant for disposing of these petitions are these: The petitioners filed three suits in the Court of the Munsiff, Krishnarajanagar, which was within the jurisdiction of the District Court at Mysore, prior to the enactment of the Civil Courts Act. The suits in question relate to title and possession of lands situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Munsiff at Krishnarajanagar. It would appear that the plaintiffs filed an application under Sec. 24 CPC. before the then District Court, Mysore, which at the relevant point of time exercised jurisdiction over the revenue districts of both Mysore and Mandya. The request of the petitioners was acceded to and the cases were transferred for trial before the Munsiff, Srirangapatna. On such transfer, the cases were numbered and registered as o. S. Nos. 405 to 407 of 1964. In course of time, the suits were tried and dismissed. When the suits came to be dismissed, the Civil Courts Act had come into force and the Munsiff's Court at Krishnarajanagar continued to be within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court at Mysore, whereas the Court at Srirangapatna stood transferred and brought within the territorial jurisdiction of the newly created District Court at Mandya. It follows, therefore, that the respective Civil Courts in these two Districts were vested with the jurisdiction to hear appeals preferred from judgments and decrees made by the above mentioned Courts. The petitioners lodged their appeals under S. 96 CPC. before the Principal Civil Judge at Mysore in the first instance. The learned Civil Judge refused to entertain the appeals and directed the return of the memorandum concerned therein by an Order made on 6-1-1967. There was also a direction that the appellant should present the memoranda before a Court of competent jurisdiction. ( 4 ) IT is unnecessary to refer to the reasons therefor, and set out by the learned civil Judge. The petitioners thereafter presented the memoranda of appeals before the Civil Judge at Mandya. There was also a direction that the appellant should present the memoranda before a Court of competent jurisdiction. ( 4 ) IT is unnecessary to refer to the reasons therefor, and set out by the learned civil Judge. The petitioners thereafter presented the memoranda of appeals before the Civil Judge at Mandya. Those appeals too were not entertained by the Civil Judge at Mandya, and there Was a similar direction by him that they should be returned for presentation to the proper court. The Order in question was made on 10-3-1967. The above orders were all common. Aggrieved by this latter order, the plaintiffs have approached this Court in the present revisions. ( 5 ) AS observed by me earlier, no specific statutory provision has been brought to my notice which would present a ready-made solution to the problem arising herein. The matter is also res Integra. I, therefore, proceed to dispose of these cases taking the principle of the matter into consideration. Ordinarily, suits relating to immovable properties ought to be filed in a Court of the lowest jurisdiction competent to try them wihin whose territorial limits such properties are situate. The suits, as originally instituted, were properly triable by the Court at Krishnarajanagar. Even after the transfer under S. 24 CPC. , the Court at Srirangapatna will be trying it only as a delegate of the Court at Krishnarajanagar, in a special sense of the matter. When the suits were disposed of by the transferee Court, is has been done in the present cases, the Court of appeal which is competent to try the appeals preferred against such judgments and decrees in one which has territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute. It is clear that in the present cases, the lands in dispute are situate within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of the Civil Judge at Mysore, that being the position, I am clearly of the opinion that the appeals ought to be entertained by the Court of the Civil Judge at Mysore and disposed of in accordance with law. ( 6 ) BUT, on the facts of the present cases, the Principal Civil Judge at mysore, has already rejected the memoranda of appeal presented by the petitioners. But the peculiar facts and circumstances make it necessary for me to exercise the inherent power saved by S. 151 CPC. ( 6 ) BUT, on the facts of the present cases, the Principal Civil Judge at mysore, has already rejected the memoranda of appeal presented by the petitioners. But the peculiar facts and circumstances make it necessary for me to exercise the inherent power saved by S. 151 CPC. In exercise ot the inherent power of this Court I direct the Principal Civil Judge at mysore to entertain the memoranda of appeals if and when they are presented by the revision petitioners, and dispose of them in accordance with law. The revision petitioners are granted two months time from today within which to take a return of the memoranda of appeals which are said to be still in the Court of the Civil Judge at Mandya and represent them before the Court of the Civil Judge at Mysore. ( 7 ) THESE Civil Revision Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. Since the respondents are unrepresented in all these cases, I make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .