S.K.CHOUDHURI, J.

1. This second appeal by the defendants first party is directed against the concurrent judgements of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiffs suit.

2. In order to appreciate the points raised in this appeal, the relevant facts which are not in dispute are these. The defendants second party purchased the disputed land from one Sirajuddin on 6th Sept., 1968. On the 23rd Nov., 1968, the defendants first party who are the appellants before this Court filed a petition under Sec.16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 12 of 1962) (hereinafter called the Act) before the Deputy Collector Incharge Land Reforms (D.C.L.R. for short) claiming themselves to be the adjacent raiyats of the land in question. In this application, Sirajuddin the vendor and the defendants second party the purchasers under the document dated 6th Sept., 1968, were the opposite party. This application was registered as case No.35 of 1968, and it was rejected by the D.C.L.R. on 8th April, 1969. It may be stated here that on 8th Nov., 1968, the defendants second party executed a Ladavi deed in favour of Sagiruddin who was their father. The said Ladavi deed was registered on 2nd Dec., 1968. Aggrieved by the decision rejecting the application under S.16(3) of the Act as aforesaid, the defendants first party filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer which was registered as Appeal Case No.10-CA of 1969-70. The appeal was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 24th Sept., 1969, and he directed the defendants second party to execute a deed of reconveyance in favour of the defendants first party. The revenue appellate authority held that Sagiruddin was not a raiyat within the meaning of Sec.2(k) of the Act, as the Ladavi deed did not confer any right upon him. It would be relevant to state here that the stand of the defendants second party before the Revenue authority was that they were Benamidars of their father Sagiruddin. It appears that thereafter the party aggrieved did not move the higher revenue authorities, hilt Sagiruddin the father of the defendants second party chose to file the present suit on the 10th October, 1969. The sole plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit, and the defendants second party were substituted in his place.

3. The plaintiffs case was that he not being a party at any stage before the revenue authorities and he being the real purchaser of the property in question, the orders passed by these authorities were nullity, without jurisdiction and not binding upon the plaintiff. The defence, inter alia, was that this Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and Sec. 43 of the Act is a complete bar for a civil suit.

4. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was not a party before the revenue authority and, therefore, the orders passed by them were not binding upon him. It held that the original plaintiff Sagiruddin was the real purchaser of the disputed land and in spite of the fact that it was brought to the notice of the Deputy Collector Incharge Land Reforms and the appellate authority namely, the Sub-Divisional Officer, he was not made a party and, therefore, the orders passed by them were without jurisdiction. It also held that Sec. 43 of the Act was not a bar to the maintainability of the suit. Accordingly, it decreed the suit. The learned District Judge in appeal upheld the judgement of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present second appeal.

5. The first question for determination in the present appeal is as to whether Sec.43 of the Act was not a bar for a civil suit.

6. Mr. A.K. Samaiyar learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that Sec. 43 of the Act makes complete bar upon the Civil Court to entertain the present suit. Mr. Harendra Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents on the other hand supported the judgements of the Courts be