ORDER

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the single Judge of the High Court of Patna, made on April 27, 1979 made in S.A. No. 326/1978 dismissing the appeal in limine.

2. The respondent-plaintiff laid the suit for declaration of title to 3 bighas and six kathas of land bearing Plot No. 235 and 243 in Khata No. 952 situated in Mauza Nainijore Pachhim Diara, Police Station Brahmpore, District Bhojpur.

3. The admitted position is that the respondent had purchased the land on May 23, 1957 for a sum of Rs. 82.2 annas from the Raja Dumraom Raj. Proceedings under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. were initiated in which it was held that the appellant was found in possession of the land. Consequent thereto, the above declaratory suit came to be filed by the respondent. It is the case of the appellant that he has been in possession of the land as a lessee since the year 1925. The trial Court accepted his contention and recorded a finding as under :

"These own documents of the Dumraon Raj clearly show that the defendant has been in possession over the suit land as a raiyat since 1925. The defendant has also filed the original Khatiswani of the year 1350 fasli prepared by Dumraon Raj which also finds the name of defendant s ancestor over the suit land. Ex. C is the Jamabandi Register of the Dumraon Raj which also has the name of defendant s ancestor over the suit Khata No. 91. Thus, the above documents of the defendant clearly prove that the suit land was never the proprietor s Zeerat land was never in Khas possession of Dumraon Raj. Rather these documents show that the Defendant has been in possession of the suit land as a raiyat."

4. On that basis, the suit was dismissed. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge held that the entries for the year 1952-69 show that the respondent was in possession of the land and, therefore, Raja Dumraon Raj had leased out the land to the appellant on year to year basis and thereby in the enquiry under Rule 7-E(iii) of the Bihar Land Reforms Rules, 1951 and Section 35 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act (for short, the "Act"), no suit could be brought in any civil Court in respect of the order passed thereunder. Thereby, it is seen that at page 21, he recorded thus :

"Since the suit land was given on lease from year to year being proprietor s private land, it was not necessary to prove that the Dumraon Raj was in Khas possession over the suit land. It is important to add here that the plaintiff has been able to show by production of Chitha that Dukhi Tiwari and other persons were recorded in several years of chitha in respect of the suit land. This fact also establish the fact that the suit lands were given on lease from year to year by the Dumraon Raj and the act of possession either by the defendant or other person in different years clearly do not confer any right of occupancy or title over the suit land of those persons recorded in the chitha."

At page 22, it is further recorded that

"The possession of different persons of the suit land on the basis of lease does not change the character of private land nor it can confer a title to those persons nor perfect title by adverse possession."

Thus, he concluded that the respondent had the title of the property. Accordingly, he declared that the respondent had valid title to the property. It is also evidenced that in 1979, in execution of the decree, the respondent came into possession of the land.

5. From these facts, the question that arises for consideration is : whether the respondent s predecessor-in-title, Dumraon Raj was in Khas possession of the land and thereby the respondent acquired title of the property under the sale deed ?

6. Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, contends that the finding recorded by the subordinate Judge is clearly incorrect in view of the law laid down by this Court. Shri B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, contends that in view of the provisions of section 6(1)(a) and the order passed under Rule 7-E(iii), t