( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the qrder dt. 4-8-1972 parsed by the i Addl. II Munsiff, Bangalore in OC. 186/66, holding that that Court has jurisdiction to try the said suit. ( 2 ) THE said suit relates to some land and the plaintiff who is the first respondent in this petition, claims various reliefs. He has challenged the sale certificate issued by the Tahsildar under S. 22 of the Mysore Tenancy act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act), in TNC. 6/1964-65 in favour of defendants 1 to 3 who are the petitioners in this revision petition, on grounds of fraud and collusion. The petitioners, while resisting the said suit, have, inter alia, contended that the Civil Court, has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of S. 46 of the Act. Therefore, one of the issues framed in the suit, namely: Has this Court no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of the provisions of the Mysore Tenancy Act, (issue no. 6), has been heard as a preliminary issue and the learned Munsiff itaking the view that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, has passed the impugned order. ( 3 ) IT is contended by Sri K. Nagarajarao, learned Counsel fox the petitioners that where a Tahsildar issues a sale certificate following the procedure prescribed by S. 22 of the Act the person to whom the land is sold becomes the owner and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any suit for setting, aside the said sale and that is expressly prohibited by the provisions of sub-sec. (2) oi S. 46 of the Act. ( 4 ) SUB-SEC. (2) of S. 46 on which reliance is placed by Sri Nagaraja rao reads thus : no order of the Tahsildar, Asst. Commr the Dy. Commr. or the govt. made under this Act shall be questioned in any Civil or Criminal court. In my opinion it is difficult to draw any sustenance from the said provisions, to the contention of Sri Nagaraja Rao. It is pertinent to note that the sale in favour of the petitioners is attacked on grounds of fraud and collusion, and it is on these grounds that a declaration is sought that the sale certificate is void and is not binding. It is pertinent to note that the sale in favour of the petitioners is attacked on grounds of fraud and collusion, and it is on these grounds that a declaration is sought that the sale certificate is void and is not binding. While the Tahsildar has power under S. 22 of the Act to grant a certificate declaring the person to be the purchaser of the land in my opinion, he has no power to cancel or set aside the same on grounds of fraud and collusion, what is conferred on the Tahsildar by that section is only a limited pqwer to grant a certificate if the conditions prescribed thereunder exist. That section does not confer on the Tahsildar the power to issue a declaration of the kind the first respondent has asked for in the suit As mentioned earlier, the said sale is attacked on grounds of fraud and collusion, and it is on these grounds that a declaration is sought that it is void and not binding on the first respondent. It, is well settled that fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings and statutory recognition is given to this principle, and where the authority functioning under the Act is not expressly or impliedly conferred with power to deal with and decide the question whether a sale is vitiated on account of fraud and collusion and it can be set aside, it is the Civil Court that is competent to deal with and decide that question as such power is undoubtedly conferred on it by S. 9 CPC. As pointed qut by this Court in Lawrence mascernhas v. Ignatious Pereira (1973) 2 Mys. L. J. 105. where the right claimed is not purely a creature of a Statute but is a common law right and the Statute entrusting the Special Tribunal with certain dispute relating to the right does not expressly oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court wholly and the language of the Statute does not in unmistakable terms make out that the right must only be exercised or enforced in a manner provided by the statute, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred. As mentioned earlier, the provisions of sub-see. (2) of S. 46 of the Act cannot be read or understood as excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to. ententain a suit of this kind. As mentioned earlier, the provisions of sub-see. (2) of S. 46 of the Act cannot be read or understood as excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to. ententain a suit of this kind. In the view I take, it must be said that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. ( 5 ) IT is then contended by Sri Nagaraja Rao that the averments in the plaint are so vague that one cannot even for a moment think that the sale in favour of the petitioners is brought about by fraud or collusion, and if that is so, the order made by the Tahsildar under S. 22 of the Act cannot be questioned. It is difficult to accede to this contention. There are allegations in the plaint that the said sale has been brought about by fraud or collusion and an issue has also been framed in that regard on the basis of those allegations and the petitioners have not raised any objection for framing such an issue and they have also not taken any steps for striking out that issue. In these circumstances, the said contention cannot be countenanced. ( 6 ) IN the result, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .