S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether a civil suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession, challenging, inter alia, the entries in the revenue records would still be maintainable after the insertion of Cl.(ee) in S.87(1), Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, by the Chotanagpur Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1920 (Bihar and Orissa Act VI of 1920), is the significant common question in these two connected Second Appeals, referred to the Full Bench for an authoritative decision.

2. The representative matrix of facts for the decision of the pristinely legal question above may be noticed briefly from Second Appeal No. 36 of 1977(R) (Paritosh Maity V/s. Ghasiram Maity). The plaintiff-respondent had instituted a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and for a permanent injunction with respect to a portion of land in Revenue Khata No. 105, Plots Nos. 347 and 361, which had been recorded in the recent survey Plot No. 1153, the area being 0.25 acre and 0.17 acre, respectively, in Mouza Chalunia, Police Station Chakulia, District Singhbhum. It was the claim that the entries in the revenue records with regard to the aforesaid plots had been wrongly recorded in the Anand Khata of Bihar Sarkar, though the State of Bihar had no manner of title and interest therein, and, as a matter of fact, these plots belonged to the plaintiff, as he was in peaceful possession thereof. The suit was contested on behalf of the defendants, and, on the pleadings o£ the parties, as many as 8 issues were framed, including Issue No. 1 with regard to the very maintainability of the suit as framed. It would appear that, during the course of trial, Issue No. 1 was not seriously pressed and no patent defect with regard to the frame of the suit was pointed out by the defendants and the same was decided in favour of the plaintiff. On the other issues as well the findings went an favour of the plaintiff and the suit was decreed with regard to declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff and confirmation of his possession, restraining the defendants, from interfering therewith. On appeal by the defendants, the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur, in a detailed judgement, confirmed the findings of the trial court, and discovering no merit in the appeal, dismissed the same with costs.

3. In the present second appeal, the defendant-appellant primarily pressed the point that the very suit was not maintainable in view of the insertion of Cl.(ee) in S.87(1), Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and, further the courts below had failed to draw the presumption of correctness attaching to the entries in the record of rights. Reliance was placed on the unreported judgement in Mosowar Khan V/s. Sk. Alim (First Appeal No. 215 off 1977(R), decided on the 2nd March, 1954). The learned single Judge, considering the significance of the question, referred the appeal to the Division Bench.

4. Before the Division Bench, hearing both the connected second appeals (Second Appeals 36 and 149 of 1977(R)) a conflict of precedent within the Court was noticed with an earlier Division Bench decision reported in AIR 1936 Pat 611 (Gobardhan Sahu V/s. Lal Mohan Kharwar). The matter was, therefore, referred to be heard by a larger Bench. That is how it is before us.

5. Learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant in Second Appeal No. 36 of 1977(R) vehemently contended that the very suit preferred by the plaintiff respondent was not at all maintainable, after the insertion of Cl.(ee) in S.87(1) of the Act. It was argued that any question relating to title to the land or its possession between the parties to the suit could now be agitated only by way of a suit under S.87 of the Act before a revenue officer. It was claimed that this provision now conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the revenue officer by virtue of S.87(1)(ee) and a civil suit with regard thereto was barred by virtue of S.258 of the Act. Firm reliance was placed on t