K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 9-7-J973 of the Civil Judge, Uttara kannada, Karwar, in R. A. No. 182 of 1972 reversing the judgment and decree dt. 4-8-1972 of the Principal Munsiff, kumta in O. S. No. 61 of 1969. ( 2 ) ON 3-8-1972, the plaintiff instituted o. S. No. 61 of 1969 for recovery of arrears of rent for four years from 1961 to 1964 alleged to be due by the respondent- defendant. He alleged tha-t the defendant who was his tenant under a lease deed dt. 11-11-1886, had committed default in the payment of rents due for the aforesaid years and was liable to pay the same. In resisting the suit, the defendant denied his liability to pay the amounts claimed by plaintiff. He disputed the rate of rent claimed by the plaintiff. Lastly, he urged that the suit claim was barred by time. ( 3 ) ON the above pleadings, the learned munsiff framed appropriate issues. on a consideration of the evidence placed by the parties, the learned Munsiff answered all the material issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the plaintiff's suit for Rs. 1,451-19. Against the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff, the defendant filed R. A. No. 182 of 1972 before the learned Civil Judge inter alia contending that the finding of the learned munsiff on the plea of limitation was erroneous and the suit was barred by s. 34 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). On an examination of the contentions urged before him, the learned Civil ju'dge by his judgment dt. 9-7-1973 rejected the plea of the defendant that the suit was barred by time, but upheld his plea that the suit was barred by S. 54 of the Act. In that view, he has allowed the appeal filed by the defendant and has reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff and has, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff ( 4 ) SMT. Vijaya Hanumanthagad, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the finding of the learned Civil judge that the suit is barred by S. 34 of the Act is plainly erroneous in law. Vijaya Hanumanthagad, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the finding of the learned Civil judge that the suit is barred by S. 34 of the Act is plainly erroneous in law. Elaborating her contention Smt. Vijaya pointed out that S. 34 of the Act does not bar a suit for recovery of rent and only bars the attachment and sale of the interest of a tenant in a land in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court. ( 5 ) WHEN the respondent was alive, he was represented by Sri C. N. Kamath. On his death, his legal representatives who have been brought on record after due notice have remained absent and are unrepresented. ( 6 ) S. 34 of the Act does not bar a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, S. 34 only bars the sale of the interest of a tenant in a land held by him as a tenant by attachment, seizure or its sale in execution of a decree or order of a Civil Court. ( 7 ) A provision in an Act barring the jurisdiction of a Civil Court has to be strictly construed. Unless the Act in express terms or by necessary implication bars a civil Court from entertaining a suit and decreeing a suit, a Civil Court will normally have jurisdiction to entertain a suit of a Civil nature and decide the same on merits. S. 34 on which the learned Civil Judge has placed reliance, nowhere bars the Civil Court from entertaining the suit and decreeing the same as to how the suit decree should be executed having regard to S. 34 of the Act is a matter that does not touch on the maintainability of the suit and the validity of the decree made by the learned munsiff. In this view, the criticism of smt. Vijaya that the finding of the learned civil Judge that the suit is barred by S. 34 of the Act is plainly erroneous in law, is well founded. ( 8 ) AS seen earlier, the correctness of the claim made by the plaintiff to the extent it had been decreed by the learned munsiff had been accepted by the learned civil Judge. ( 8 ) AS seen earlier, the correctness of the claim made by the plaintiff to the extent it had been decreed by the learned munsiff had been accepted by the learned civil Judge. In this view, the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge is liable to be reversed in its entirety and the judgment and decree of the learned munsiff requires to be restored. ( 9 ) IN the result, I allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge and restore the judgment and decree of the learned munsiff. ( 10 ) AS the legal representatives of the respondent, lince. deceased, have remained absent and have not contested the appeal, I direct the parties to bear their own costs in this appeal. --- *** --- .