Judgment : Plaintiffs in O.S.No.70 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Andipatti are the revision petitioners in both the revision petitions. 2. Material facts which necessitated filing of these revision petitions with broad facts could be summarised thus, Plaint schedule properties admittedly belonged to one Venkitapathy and Damodarasamy of Coimbatore and it is the case of plaintiffs that on the basis of oral agreement with owners, they were cultivating the same. It is their case that they were paying 1/3rd of the income to the landlords as rent and 2/3rd was retained by them as their share. Rent was being paid to landlords till 1985. Proceedings were initiated against owners under Tamil Nadu Land Ceiling Act and therefore owners did not turn up nor did they show interest in receiving rent from petitioners. 3. Defendants in the case are adjoining property owners and are close associates of both plaintiffs and defendants. it is their case that defendants obtained signatures from plaintiffs in blank papers and stamped papers and utilizing the same have created some documents. It is said that defendants are claiming right over the property on the basis of release deed alleged to have been executed by them which according to them is fraudulent. It is further said that they have entered into an agreement with Raj Shree Sugars and Chemicals Limited agreeing to supply sugarcane for which they have also received advance. But subsequently authorities in collusion of defendants paid the balance amount to defendants, which was really due to plaintiffs. From the correspondence, they came to know that a release deed has been falsely created by defendant dated 16. 1991. Defendants also initiated proceedings under Sec.145 of Code of Criminal Procedure which also ended in their favour. A Criminal M.P. was filed before this Court to quash the order and this court also confirmed the said decision. It was held by this Court that validity of release deed or fraudulent nature of document cannot be decided in a criminal proceedings under Sec.145, Crl.P.C., and so long as document stands, plaintiffs cannot claim any right over the property including possession. According to plaintiffs, defendants are only trespassers and they have no right over the property. It was held by this Court that validity of release deed or fraudulent nature of document cannot be decided in a criminal proceedings under Sec.145, Crl.P.C., and so long as document stands, plaintiffs cannot claim any right over the property including possession. According to plaintiffs, defendants are only trespassers and they have no right over the property. Suit was therefore laid for the following reliefs: “(a) Declaring that the plaintiffs are the cultivating tenants of the suit properties entitled to the protection of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act and consequently directing defendant and to deliver the suit properties without any let or hindrance to the plaintiffs; .(b) Directing the defendant to pay damages for being in wrongful use and occupation of the suit lands at the rate to be ascertained at the enquiry to be ordered underO.20, Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code; .(c) Directing the defendant to pay the plaintiffs the costs of this suit; .(d) and to grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.” 4. Reason for filing the revision petition is defendants filed an application questioning the maintainability of the suit since according to them the suit is barred under Sec.16-A of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969. According to defendants, civil court has no jurisdiction to give declaration that plaintiff are cultivating tenants and remedy of plaintiffs is only to move the authorities under the Act and the jurisdiction of civil court is expressly excluded. .5. Plaintiffs also filed an application for amendment of plaint seeking for deletion of relief (a) in the plaint and for substituting other reliefs. In the amendment application, plaintiffs wanted the following reliefs: .“Declaring that Ex.P-1 marked in M.C.No.6 of 1991 on the file of the Executive Magistrate, Periakulam is a fabricated document which not having been executed by plaintiffs 1 to 3 and consequently directing the defendants to deliver possession to plaintiffs from whose possession the suit properties were wrongly taken possession of by the Revenue Inspector, Mayiladumparai on 212. 1991 to hold the same as Receiver appointed under orders passed in the said M.C.No.6 of 1991 on the file of the Court of Executive Magistrate, Periakulam.” .6. 1991 to hold the same as Receiver appointed under orders passed in the said M.C.No.6 of 1991 on the file of the Court of Executive Magistrate, Periakulam.” .6. The application filed by defendant in I.A.No.112 of 1998 was allowed and lower court held that the court has no jurisdiction. The same is challenged in C.R.P.No.3869 of 1999. The application seeking amendment to plaint as I.A.No.111 of 1998 was dismissed and the same is challenged in C.R.P.No.3354 of 1999. 7. Since caveat was entered by respondents, I heard the revision petitions at the admission stage itself. 8. I will first consider C.R.P.No.3968 of 1999 wherein application filed by defendant on the maintainability of suit was questioned and accepted by lower court. Lower court held that the suit is not maintainable under Sec.16-A of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act, 1969. Sec.16-A of the Act reads thus: “No civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Record Officer, the District Collector or other officer or authority empowered by or under this Act has to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of any action taken or to be taken up by such officer or authority in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.” The said provision was incorporated under the Act by virtue of Amendment Act 34 of 1972. 9. A reading of the provision makes it clear that jurisdiction of the court is barred in respect of any matter which the record officer, the District Collector or other officer or authority empowered by or under this Act has to determine. Only in respect of those matters, which the authorities under the Act are empowered to determine are barred under Sec.16-A and civil suit is found to be not maintainable. Under Sec.9 of C.P.C., a suit is maintainable unless it is expressly or impliedly barred. It is also well settled that the bar of jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred and the same will have to be strictly proved. It is also settled that all suits of civil nature except that are barred are maintainable by civil court. Sec.34 of the Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive. It is also well settled that the bar of jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred and the same will have to be strictly proved. It is also settled that all suits of civil nature except that are barred are maintainable by civil court. Sec.34 of the Specific Relief Act is not exhaustive. (See: Ashok Kumar Srivastav v. National Insurance Company Limited & others Ashok Kumar Srivastav v. National Insurance Company Limited & others Ashok Kumar Srivastav v. National Insurance Company Limited & others , J.T. (1998)3 S.C. 519. 10. While considering whether jurisdiction of court is excluded. It depends upon the allegations in the plaint and not open those which may ultimately be found true. Such allegation may, after the trial be held to be unfounded which will in consequence result in dismissal of the suit not because the court had no jurisdiction but because the allegations on which it was based were found to be incorrect. The question of maintainability of a suit also thus depends on the allegations made in the plaint. Plaintiff cannot, however, by merely so drafting his prayer as to exclude relief which may or may not be granted by the court confer jurisdiction to try the suit. Hence, in all cases it is necessary to consider what the cause of action in the plaint is and what is the substantive relief sought for by the plaintiff. An exclusion of jurisdiction of civil court is not to be inferred readily. .11. With the above principle in mind, let us consider what are the matters to be considered by authorities under the Act. Sec.3 provides for preparation of tenancy rights. In that section, Government by notification direct the preparation or record of tenancy right wherein the name of the tenant, landlord, intermediaries and such other particulars as prescribed under the Act has to be entered in the Register by the authority. The Act also provides that if any person aggrieved by the draft record, may move for rectification of the same. Sec.4 also authorises authorities to incorporate other lands which is not taken note of in the record of rights. Sec.4-A gives power to authorities to take suo motu action where no application is filed under Sec.3 or 4 for inclusion of additional properties. Sec.4 also authorises authorities to incorporate other lands which is not taken note of in the record of rights. Sec.4-A gives power to authorities to take suo motu action where no application is filed under Sec.3 or 4 for inclusion of additional properties. Sec.5 relates to modification of entries in the approved record of tenancy rights for which also application is to be filed and procedure is also provided under Sub-sec.(3) of that section. Sec.5-A provides for Constitution of Advisory Committees. Sec.6 is right of appeal given to aggrieved person against an order under Sec.3 or 4 of the Act and remission is also provides to District Collector. Sec.8 enables the authorities to make necessary amendments to the approved record of right after it has been modified in appeal or revision. For the purpose of implementing above provisions authorities are also given the power to take evidence and if it is found that any false information is given, person who made false information is also liable for penalty. These are the main provisions of the Act. 12. From the above provisions it is clear that the purpose of the Act is to record in a register maintained by the authorities as to who are the tenants, landlords and intermediaries in respect of particular property. 13. On going by the averments in the plaint, I do not think that the authorities are entitled to consider or grant any relief to plaintiffs in the case. What plaintiffs allege is that while they are tenants, defendants trespassed into the property. There is no landlord-tenant relationship nor plaintiffs are claiming right against landlord. It is a simple suit by a person claiming to be cultivating tenant of the land against the trespassers of the land. Plaintiffs alleged that on the basis of fraudulent documents created by defendants, they trespassed and dispossessed them. For considering the cause of action, we have to read the entire plaint and it is on that basis, we have to consider what is the relief sought for. Merely because plaintiffs want declaration that they are cultivating tenants that by itself may not exclude jurisdiction plaintiffs want removal of trespass and to recover possession from defendants. That relief cannot be granted by authorities under the Act and Sec.16-A cannot be a bar for considering merits of the case. Merely because plaintiffs want declaration that they are cultivating tenants that by itself may not exclude jurisdiction plaintiffs want removal of trespass and to recover possession from defendants. That relief cannot be granted by authorities under the Act and Sec.16-A cannot be a bar for considering merits of the case. If the court found that plaintiffs were in possession of properties and defendants have trespassed by creating fraudulent documents has to decree the suit holding that plaintiffs are unlawfully dispossessed. There is no question as to who is the tenant or who is the landlord. The main question to be considered is whether the release deed alleged to have been executed by plaintiffs are genuine or fraudulently created. 14. The finding of the lower court that suit is barred under Sec.16-A of the Act cannot therefore be sustained and the order will have to be set aside, and C.R.P.No.3968 of 1999 is to be allowed. .15. Now, I will come to C.R.P.No.3354 of 1999 wherein application of plaintiffs to amend the plaint was dismissed. On going by the amendment application, I do not think that any amendment is necessary. Once I hold that the suit is not barred under the Act and suit for declaration is maintainable, the question whether the document dated 16. 1991 was executed by plaintiffs or not or whether it is fraudulently created also will have to be decided. If ultimately it is found that it is not executed by plaintiffs, there is no necessity for setting it aside. Plaintiffs can simply ignore the same and there is no necessity for declaration that document is fraudulently created and the same is liable to be set aside. In that view of the matter, there is no necessity to amend the plaint. Court below will have to consider whether the document relied on by plaintiffs is valid or not or whether it is fraudulently created. In that view of the matter. I do not find that there is any necessity to consider whether the suit is barred by limitation or not consequent to the amendment and any vested right of defendant is taken away by virtue of the amendment. 16. In the result, C.R.P.No.3354 of 1999 is dismissed in view of my finding that I.A.No.111 of 1998 is unnecessary. C.R.P.No.3968 of 1999 is allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.18860 of 22294 of 1999 are closed.