( 1 ) THIS second appeal is by defendants 1 and 2 against the decree passed by the II Addl Civil Judge, Belgaum in CA 227 of 1964 reversing the decree passed by the Addl Munsiff, Chikodi in RCS. 156 of 1962. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT 1 instituted tha suit on i4-6-1962 for a declaration that the sale transaction evidenced by Ex 93 executed on 2-1-1957 by the predecessor of defendants 3 to 8 in favour of defendants 1 and 2 is void, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff; and for a cancellation of the entries made in favour of the 1st and 2nd defendants in the record of rights showing them es kabjedars of the suit lands. ( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that he is the tenant of the suit lands since several decades and that therefore, his landlord viz. , the predecessor of defendents 3 to 8 could not have sold the suit lands to defendants 1 and 2 on 2-1-1957 without offering the suit lands for sale to him (the plaintiff) - the tenant in possession of the suit lands-as required by S 64 of tha BTAL act, 1948 (herein after referred to as the 'act' ). The case of the plaintiff further is that the sale in favour of defendants 1 and 2 is invalid as provided in S 64 of the Act and es the entries in the record of rights have been made in favour of the 1st and 2nd defendants on the strength of the sale 'deed, those entries in the record of rights may be directed to be canoslled. ( 4 ) THA suit was resisted principally by defendants 1 and 2 on various grounds. They contended that the plaintiff was not the tenant of the suit lands and that therefore, the sale in thsir favour is not hit by the provisions of S 64 of the Act. They further contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. ( 5 ) THE learned Munsiff held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant any of the prayers of the plaintiff and consequently dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Civil Judge held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He further held that tha plaintiff was the tenant of the suit lands on the date when Ex. On appeal, the learned Civil Judge held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. He further held that tha plaintiff was the tenant of the suit lands on the date when Ex. 93 was executed and that as the landlord did not offer the suit lands for sale to tha plaintiff as required by S 64 of the Act, the sale in favour of the 1st and 2nd defendants is invalid under sub-sec (8) of S. 64 of the Act. The learned Civil judge also held that 1he Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant a decree for cancellation of the entries made in the record of rights. Consequently the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayod for. Hence this second appeal by defendants 1 and 2. ( 6 ) SRI G. D. Shirgurkar, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Civil Judge committed an error of law in taking the view that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for a declaration that the sale by the predecessor of defendants 3 to 8 in favour of defendsnts 1 and 2 is invalid on the ground that it contravenes the provisions of S. 64 of the Act. ( 7 ) SEC. 64 of the Act regulates the sale of agricultural lands. When a landlord intends to sell an agricultural land, he is required to get the reasonable price of the same determined in accordance with sub-sec (1)of s 64 of the Act. After the reasonable price is so determined, the landlord is required to simultaneously offer the agricultural land to the tenant In actual possession thereof and to, all persons and bodies mentioned in the priority list as per the provisions of sub-sec (2) of Sec. 64. Within one month, the persons to whom the offer is made are required to intimate the landlord their willingness to purchase the land as required by sub-sec (3) of S 64 The person having the highest priority in the order of the priority list who has expressed his Willingness to purchase the lam has to be offered the land for sale as required under sub-sec (4) of S. 64 of the act. The person to whom the land so offered has to pay the amount' fixed bv the Tribunal within the prescribed petriod as required under sub-see (5) of S 64 of the Act. If this procedure is not followed and a sale is effected it is provided in sub-sec (8) that such a sate shall be invalid. S. 84c of the Act provides as follows :" 84c. (1): Where in respect of the transfer or acquisition of any land made on or after the commencement of the Amending Act, 1955, the Mamlatdar suo motu or on the application of any person interested in such land has reason to believe that such transfer or acquisition is or becomes invalid under any of the provisions of this act, the Mamlatdar shall issue a notice and hold an inquiry as provided for in S. 84b and decide whether the transfer or acquisition isor is not invalid. (2) If after holding such inquiry, the Mamlatdar comes to a conclusion that the transfer or acquisition of land is invalid, he shall make an order declaring the transfer or acquisition to be invalid. . . . . " ( 8 ) SEC. 85a off the Act ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and provides that : " 85a; (1): If any suit instituted in any Civil Court involves any issues which are required to be settled, decided or dealt with by any authority competent to settle, decide or deal with such issues under this Act (hereinafter referred to as the "competent authority") the Civil Court shall stay the suit and refer such issues to such competent authority for determination. (2) On receipt of such reference from, the Civil Court the competent authority shall deal with and decide such issues in accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall communicate its decision to the Civil Court and such Court shall thereupon dispose of the, suit in accordance, with the procedure applicable thereto ( 9 ) SEC. (2) On receipt of such reference from, the Civil Court the competent authority shall deal with and decide such issues in accordance with the provisions of this Act and shall communicate its decision to the Civil Court and such Court shall thereupon dispose of the, suit in accordance, with the procedure applicable thereto ( 9 ) SEC. 70 (MB) of the) Act provides that:"for the purposes of this Act, the following shall be the duties and functions to be performed by the Mamlatdar: ***** (mb): to issue a certificate under S. 84a and decide under S. 84b or 84c whether a transfer or acquisition of land is invalid and tor dispose of land as provided in S. 84c," ( 10 ) IT is clear from S. 64 read with Ss. 70 (mb), 84c and 85a of the act that the Civil Court's jurisdiction to declare a sale effected in contravention of S. 64 as invalid has been excluded and that exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred in -that behalf on the Mamlatdar (Tahsildar ). The Supreme Court, in Jambu Rao v. Neminath, AIR 1968 SC 1358 . after construing the aforesaid provisions of the Act, held that the power to decide whether the transfer or acquisition is invalid under S. 84c and to dispose of the land as provided in that Section is undoubtedly conferred upon the Mamlatdar and that the. Civil Court has no jurisdiction in that behalf. The Court below, in my opinion, was clearly in error in following the decision of this court in Gajanan Gana Nagakar v. Anandi, 1961 Mys. L. J 237. In that case, this Court was dealing with a case in which the transaction of the year 1949 was challenged as being invalid, the same having been made in contravention of S. 64 of the Act. This Court held that the power to decide whether the alienation was made, in contravention of S. 64 of the Act and the alienation is therefore, void is not one conferred on the Mamlatdar by virtue of the provisions of Section 70 or any other provisions of the Act. This Court further held that a suit in the Civil Court for a declaration that the sale effected in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 64 is void is competent. This Court further held that a suit in the Civil Court for a declaration that the sale effected in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 64 is void is competent. But it has to be pointed out that thei said decision was rendered by this Court while dealing with the transaction of the year 1949. The said Act was amended by Bombay Act XIII of 1956 which came into force with effect from 1st August 1956. It is bv the Amending Act that a new Clause 70 (mb) and S. 84c were added. Before the Act was amended, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for a declaration that the sale effected in contravention of S. 64 of the Act is void. The decision of this Court in Gajanan's case (2) was rendered taking into consideration the provisions of the Act prior to amendment by Bombay Act 13 of 1956. Hence the above decision cannot be applied to the facts of this case inasmuch as the transaction impugned in the present case was long after the Act was amended by Bombay Act 13 of 56 by which the, jurisdiction of the Civil Court to declare a sale made in contraventicn of S. 64 of the Act as invalid has been excluded by introducing new Ss. 70 (mb) and 84c in the Act. I therefore, hold that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for a declaration that the sale transaction Ex. 93 dt. 2-1-1957 is invalid as offending S. 64 of the Act. As the suit itself is not maintainable, -the question of referring any particular issue to the Tribunal under S. 85a of the Act does not arise in this case. ( 11 ) THE only other question for consideration in this case is whether the suit is maintainable so far as the second relief sought for by the plaintiff is concerned. The plaintiff has sought for the relief of cancellation of the entries made in the record of rights in favour of defendants 1 and 2 on the basis of Exhibit 93. The plaintiff has sought for the relief of cancellation of the entries made in the record of rights in favour of defendants 1 and 2 on the basis of Exhibit 93. The entries have bpen effected on the basis of the registered sale deed showing the name of defendants 1 and 2 as Kabjedars, the learned Civil Judge has relied upon a Decision of this Court in 1969 mysore Law Journal Short-notes, Item No. 342 at page 156 for taking the view that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, for cancellation of the entries in the record of rights made in favour of defendants 1 and 2. The; short notes refers to a decision of this Court in Surendra Bhupal shalt v. Ganapathy Devappa Hukkkeri, WP. 80167 dt. 28-8-1969. In that decision, this Court was dealing with a writ petition challenging the orders made in regard to the entries in the record of rights wherein it has been observed that:" The proviso to S. 135 of the Act provides that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights, he may institute a suit against any person continuing his title to such right for a declaration of his right and that the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. Thus any person who is aggrieved by an entry in the record of rights, has an adequate remedy by way of a suit for declaration of his title to his rights. " ( 12 ) THIS Court did noi hold that a suit in the Civil Court is maintainable for cancellation of the. entry made in the record of rights. All that this Court pointed out was that a person who is aggrieved by an entry in the record erf rights can file a suit for declaration of his title, and that if he is successful in obtaining a decree,. effect shall have to be given by the revenue authorities to the said decision by correcting the entry in the record of rights in accordance with the decision of the Civil Court. effect shall have to be given by the revenue authorities to the said decision by correcting the entry in the record of rights in accordance with the decision of the Civil Court. This court has not laid down the proposition that the Civil Court can entertain a suit merely for cancellation of the entries in the record of rights, s. 133 of the Mysore, Land Revenue Act, 1964 in express terms bars such a suit. It provides that no suit shall lie against the State Govt or any officer of the State Govt in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any record or register that is maintained or to have any such entry omitted or amended. The proviso makes it clear that if any person is aggrioved as to any right of which he is in possession, by an entry made in any record or register maintained under Chap. XI, he may institute a suft against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right, for a declaration of his right under Chap. VI of the Specific Relief Act 1877; and the entry in the record or register shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. ( 13 ) THE present suit was instituted before the Mysore Land Revenue act, 1964 came into force and when the Bom Land Revenue Code 1879 was in force. But even in the Bombay Land Revenue Code, there it a specific provision viz. , S. 135l of the Code. It provides that no suit shall 116 against the Govt or any officer of Govt in respect of A claim to have an entry made in any record or register that is maintained under Chap. X, or to have any such entry omitted or amended and the provisions Of Chap. 13 shall not apply to any decision or order under Chap. X. The deer effect of this section is to bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain A suit for amendment or cancellation of an entry made in any record or register 'hat is maintained under Chap. X. That however, does not preclude the aggrieved person from instituting an appropriate suit for declaration of trile in the Civil Court. X. The deer effect of this section is to bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain A suit for amendment or cancellation of an entry made in any record or register 'hat is maintained under Chap. X. That however, does not preclude the aggrieved person from instituting an appropriate suit for declaration of trile in the Civil Court. When he obtains an appropriate decree in his favour, the said decree has to be given effect to by the revenue authorities and the entries in the record of rights will have to be suitably amended in accordance with the decree of the Civil Court. It is therefore, clear that the Civil Court cannot entertain a suit for the relief of cancellation or amendment of the entry in the record of rights in view of the bar contained in S. 135l of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and later by the provisions of S. 135 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, 1964. ( 14 ) I therefore, hold that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for seeking both the, reliefs claimed in the suit. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons staled above, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge are set aside and those of the learned Munsiff are restored. No costs. --- *** --- .