KUNJBEHARI RAI Vs. BUNI SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of the defendant first party arising out of a suit for a declaration that plot No. 603 in village Koilam, bearing touzi No. 2873, was the kasht of the plaintiff. The Courts below have decreed the suit. The case for the defence was that the plaintiff was a party to a batwara proceeding and should not be allowed to raise the question in a suit in the civil Court.

(2.) B.N. Mitter, appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised three points before me. Firstly, that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 119, Estates Partition Act, (Bengal Act 5 of 1897); secondly, that it is-barred by limitation under Art. 14, Limitation Act, the order of the revenue Court having been made final on 3 December 1931, and the present suit being filed on 6 May 1936 and thirdly, that the appellant is estopped by the principles of res judicata under Section 119, Estates Partition Act. So far as the third point is concerned, it is merely another way of putting the first point that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 119 of the Act.

(3.) So far as the first point is concerned, a large number of decisions have been referred to wherein under certain circumstances it was held that the civil Court was not entitled to go into the same question if it had already been agitated in a- revenue Court: see Ram Bahadur Singh V/s. Keahava Frasad Singh A.I.R. 1930 Pat 180; Rajeshwar Singh V/s. Shyam Bihari Singh A.I.R. 1927 Pat 286, Kesari Sahai Singh V/s. Hitnarayan Singh A.I.R. 1920 Pat 228, Jai Nath Singh V/s. Ramadhin Singh and Lal Das V/s. Ram Narain 63 Ind.Cas 2. But looking at the provisions of Section 119, it; is clear that, what is barred thereby or not liable to be contested or set aside by civil suit are orders passed under the different sections referred to in Section 119, and not a suit by any person claiming an interest in land.