1. This civil revision petition arises out of an order dated 19th April, 1978.

2. In appeal, the lower appellate court held that the appeal was not hit by Sec. 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956

(hereinafter referred to as the Act) which runs as follows: "4. XX XX XX XX (c) every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending stand abated XX XX XX"

3. On a perusal of this section, it is clear that every suit and proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area where the notification has been made under Sec.3 of the Act shall abate under S.4(c) of the Act. In my opinion, only such suit, appeal, reference or revision shall abate if such a suit, appeal, reference or revision is in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area where a notification has been made under S.3 of the Act. If the suit or appeal or revision or reference is not in respect of declaration of any right or interest in any land, then such a suit will not abate. In other words, if a suit is filed unconnected with the declaration of right or interest in any land where the consolidation proceeding is going on, then such a suit will not abate.

4. In the present case, it is clear from the petition and the counter-affidavit that the suit lands were purchased at an auction by the decree-holder. The plaintiffs-opposite party purchased the entire holding consisting of 5.75 acres of land from the auction-purchaser-decree-holder. It is also clear from paragraph No. 3 of the counter-affidavit that the sale certificate was granted to the decree-holder on 18th April, 1964. The sale certificate is a document of title. The title has already been declared in favour of the decree-holder by issuing the sale certificate. These plaintiffs are the assignees of the decree-holders, and, as such, they have got title in respect of the suit land. It is not at all necessary for these plaintiffs-opposite party to file a declaratory suit for title and interest in the suit land. Therefore, the present suit was filed by these plaintiffs-opposite party for delivery of possession of the suit land as well as for mesne profits.

5. In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Krit Singh V/s. State of Bihar, (1979 BBCJ (HC) 259) : (AIR 1979 Pat 250). In that case, in paragraph No. 15, their Lordships held as follows : "Controversy in a suit may relate to right and title in land and certain reliefs dependent on the determination of the aforesaid title. Only in such a situation, in my opinion, the suit abates not only in relation to ancillary or dependent reliefs. But the position is different where independent relief or reliefs, unconnected with the declaration and determination of title to land are involved in a suit. In such a situation the suit does not abate in relation to such controversies." Therefore, my view is being fully supported by the Full Bench decision in Ram Krit Singhs case (supra).

6. Learned Counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, has relied on a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Tribeni Prasad Singh V/s. Ramasray Prasad Chaudhari, (AIR 1931 Pat 241). The question for decision in this Full Bench case was whether the suit instituted by the decree-holder-auction-purchaser for recovery of possession of the property purchased in execution of the decree was barred by the provisions of Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure? The