G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 18-9-1975 passed by the Civil Judge, raichur, in RA No. 50 of 1974, on his file, allowing the appeal on reversing the judgment and decree dt. 8-4-1974 passed by the Munsiff in OS No. 42 of 1972, on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. ( 2 ) THE genealogy of the parties is as under : ( 3 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that he is the son of Syed Mansoor AH and defendant is the son of Syed Usman ali who is the brother of his father. It is further alleged in the plaint that in the year 1313-F. corresponding to 1904 ad one Sujauddin the holder of Munthkab of inam for Siddi Mosque of Kallur village, Taluk Manvi, to the extent of 0-4-0 annas share in service inam land s. No. 910 of Kallur village died issueless leaving his mother Aiyashabi as his only heir and successor. The said Aiyashabi who was the maternal grandmother of plaintiff's father out of love and affection for him, applied to the atiyat court in the succession proceedings in the year 1314 F. to grant succession of late Sujauddin in the name of plaintiff's father Syed Mansoor Ali and thus she released her 0-4-0 annas share succeeded by her son Sujauddin in favour of plaintiff's father and the competent authority having accepted the same granted succession of 0-4-0 annas share of Sajauddin in the name of plaintiffs father Syed Mansoor Ali alone in the year 1314 F. and accordingly his name was entered in the Munthkab as holder of 0-4-0 annas share which is evident from Munthkab No. 23849 of 1301 Hijri. It is alleged that the Asst. Commissioner, Raichur after holding a succession enquiry under the Hyderabad Atiyat enquiries Act, 1952, to the property of syed Mansoor Ali, passed the following order in respect of the 0-4-0 annas share of plaintiff's father thus. " Succession of Syed Mansoor ali 0-4-0 annas share holder is granted in the name of his eldest son Gouse Mohiuddin along with equal shikmi of Syed Saifulla the youngest son. "it is alleged in the plaint that this order was passed by the Asst. " Succession of Syed Mansoor ali 0-4-0 annas share holder is granted in the name of his eldest son Gouse Mohiuddin along with equal shikmi of Syed Saifulla the youngest son. "it is alleged in the plaint that this order was passed by the Asst. Commissioner on the wrong assumption that Syed Saifulla was the younger brother of Syed oouse Mohiuddin. An appeal was made to the Spl. Deputy Commissioner. The spl. Deputy Commissioner corrected the mistake committed by the Asst. Commissioner holding that Syed Saifullah was not the younger brother of the plaintiff. But, he confirmed the order of succession in favour of Syed Mansoor ali, explaining that while Syed Mansoor ah got the share, his younger brother syed Osraan the father of Syed Saifullah got 0-2-0 annas shikmi. It is this order passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner that is challenged as one without jurisdiction before the Civil Court in the suit. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for in these terms. " It is declared that the orders of Atiyat Asst. Commissioner, Raichur and Spl. Deputy Commissioner, raichur, granting equal shikmi in the name of the plaintiff and defendant in respect of Inam land Sy. No. 9. 0 situated at Kallur. Taluk manvi. is illegal, null and void, it is further declared that the name of the defendant be removed as shikmidar from Revenue Records, under the circumstances of the case no order for costs. "aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the defendant went up in appeal before the learned Civil Judge, Raichur in RA No. 50 of 1974 on his file. The learned Civil Judge raised the following points as arising for his consideration in the appeal. (1) Whether the Atiyat Courts had jurisdiction to decide claims to succession in respect of Atiyat grants? (2) If so, whether the civil court had jurisdiction to declare the orders of the Atiyat courts in that behalf as illegal, null and void ? ( 4 ) THE learned Civil Judge reassessing the evidence on record, answered point No. 1 in the affirmative ; he answered point No. 2 in the negative. So also point No. 3. He answered Point no. ( 4 ) THE learned Civil Judge reassessing the evidence on record, answered point No. 1 in the affirmative ; he answered point No. 2 in the negative. So also point No. 3. He answered Point no. 4 in the affirmative and Point No. 5 in the negative and in that view he allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has come up with the above second appeal before this Court. ( 5 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff-appellant strenuously urged before me that the learned civil Judge was not justified in holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to declare the impugned order of the spl. Deputy Commissioner as one without jurisdiction. He submitted that the order of the Spl. Deputy Commissioner going behind the order of the Atiyat court passed earlier in the year 1314-F was one without jurisdiction and that the civil Court had jurisdiction to declare so. In that view he submitted that the judgment and decree of the first appellate court should he set aside and those of the trial court should be sustained and restored. ( 6 ) AS against that, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent- defendant argued supporting the judgment and decree of the first appellate court. ( 7 ) THE sole point, therefore, that arises for my consideration in this appeal is : Whether the first appellate court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the Spl. Deputy Commissioner under the Atiyat enquiry was competent to go behind the order passed by the atiyat Court in the year 1904 and if not whether his order is one without jurisdiction ? ( 8 ) S. 3-A (1) of the Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 (as amended by Hyd. Act no. Deputy Commissioner under the Atiyat enquiry was competent to go behind the order passed by the atiyat Court in the year 1904 and if not whether his order is one without jurisdiction ? ( 8 ) S. 3-A (1) of the Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 (as amended by Hyd. Act no. 10 of 1952) reads :"in the case of Atiyat grants specified in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of S. 2, Atiyat enquiries and enquiries as to any right, title or interest therein shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Hyderabad (Abolition of jagirs) Regulation, 1358 Fasli (LXIX of 1358 F.), be held in Atiyat Courts in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and in the course of such enquiries Atiyat Courts shall also be competent to enquire into claims to succession arising in respect of such grants: provided that claims to succession arising after the completion of atiyat inquiry of any such grant shall not be entertained in any atiyat court and all such claims shall be filed in and decided by the competent Civil Couri". It is the case of the plaintiff that his father Syed Mansoor Ali got 0-4-0 annas share succeeding to Sujjauddin, on the move of the mother of Sujjauddin, and that was the subject matter of the Atiyat enquiry in the year 1904. That was a fact accomplished and a case- already decided. Therefore, he submitted that the Spl. Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to go behind it and hold that his father Syed Mansoor Ali got only 0-2-0 annas share and his younger brother Osman got the other 0-2-0 annas share. That was not the intention of the mother of Sujjauddin and in the earlier order passed in Atiyat enquiry it was clearly ordered that Syed Mansoor ali should get 0-4-0 annas share for himself. The Spl. Deputy Commissioner, obviously did not notice the fact and the provision of law and thus he acted without jurisdiction in reopening the earlier order of 1904 and holding that Syed Mansoor Ali along with his younger brother Osman got 0-2-0 annas share each. That is obviously without jurisdiction and it is beyond the scope of Atiyat enquiry. It is for that reason that the trial Court held that the order of the Spl. Deputy Commissioner was without jurisdiction. That is obviously without jurisdiction and it is beyond the scope of Atiyat enquiry. It is for that reason that the trial Court held that the order of the Spl. Deputy Commissioner was without jurisdiction. The learned Civil Judge, however, without appreciating these facts and without appreciating that in the earlier Atiyat enquiry, 1904, Syed Mansoor Ali was granted 0-4-0 annas share for himself, proceeded to hold that the Atiyat Court had jurisdiction to go into the question of succession. The learned Civil Judge has ignored the proviso reproduced above. In fact, this court in an earlier division Bench decision, in the case raghavendra Rao v. MRAT. (1) has held that normally, the Atiyat Court had jurisdiction to go into the question of succession, provided it does not fall within the proviso of S. 3-A, This is what this Court has held :"when once an enquiry has been held according to law and completed by recording a decision, then it would not be open to the atiyat Court to entertain a claim based on succession". That is what has happened here. That being so, I am constrained to hold that the Spl. Deputy Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in re-opening the earlier order of the Atiyat Court and recording his finding that Syed Mansoor ah got 0-2-0 annas share and his younger brother Osman got 0-2-0 annas share; that is without jurisdiction. That being so, the trial court is perfectly justified in passing the decree which it has done and the first appellate Court was clearly in error in reversing the decree. ( 9 ) IN the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate Court are hereby set aside and those of the learned munsiffare sustained and restored. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs of this appeal. --- *** --- .