ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. This Second Appeal by the plain tiff is against a judgement of reversal.

2. The only significant question involved in this second appeal is whether S.43 of the, Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (shortly known as the Bihar Land Ceiling. Act) was a bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to maintain the suit.

3. On 13-9-1966 a Ceiling Case No. 6 of 1966-67 was filed under S.16(3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the intervenor-defendants of the suit in question. Admittedly in that Ceiling Case the plaintiff-appellant was not a party. But defendants 5 to 8 of the present suit were parties in the Ceiling Case filed by the intervenor-defendants.

The present suit by the plaintiff-appellant was filed the very next day of the filing of Ceiling Case No. 6 of 1966-67 by the intervenor-defendants (claiming pre-emption) i.e. the suit in question was filed on 4-9-1966. The aforesaid case under the Ceiling Act and the suit - both proceeded simultaneously. The case under the Ceiling Act was disposed of by order dt. 13-5-1971 and the suit was decreed on 28-3-1972.

4. The contesting respondents in the present appeal filed an application in the suit for impleading them as intervenor-defendants and their prayer being allowed, they were added as intervenor-defendants. It were only these intervenor-defendants who contested the suit.

5. The plaintiffs case was that he and the father of defendant No. 1 jointly purchased 1.55 dec. of land bearing plot Nos. 227 and 282 appertaining to khata No. 15 from one Bandhu Gerai in the name of their friend Ganauri Mahton of village Sadarpur. According to the plaintiff, this Ganauri, in whose name the lands were purchased, was a mere Benamidar in respect of the suit land and he had never any concern with the same. The plaintiffs further case was that the land covered by the sale deed (4-2-1937) was later partitioned between the purchasers and the parties came in their respective possessions - The plaintiff came in possession in respect of 771/2 decimals which is the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiffs further case was that subsequently on 25-5-1966 the defendant 1 in collusion with the defendant second party (heirs of the said benamidar) got a sale deed with respect to entire suit land executed by defendant second party in his favour.

In the circumstances the plaintiff filed the suit in question for declaration of title and confirmation of possession to the extent of plaintiffs share in the suit land. The plaintiff further prayed to declare the sale deed dt. 25-5-1966 executed by the defendant second party in favour of defendant 1 to be null and void.

6. As already stated above, the only contesting defendants were the intervenor-defendants and their case was that Ganauri was the real owner and not a mere benamidar. Further case was that on the death of Ganauri, his heirs i.e. defendants 5 to 8 sold the suit land to defendant 1 by the registered sale deed dt. 25-5-1966. The intervenor-defendants also averred that as the intervenor-defendants possessed land in the boundary of the suit lands, they were entitled to pre-emption and hence had filed a case claiming pre-emption under S.16(3) of the Ceiling Act. According to the intervenor-defendants (contesting defendants), the suit filed by the plaintiff was a collusive one and was filed only with a view to defeating the provision of S.16(3) of the Ceiling Act.

7. I have already stated above that Ceiling Case No. 6 of 1966-67, filed by the intervenor-defendants, filed a day earlier to the suit, was proceeding side by side with the suit and the L.R.D.C. dismissed the pre-emptors (intervenors) application for pre-emption. The order was confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the Collector. The Commissioner, too, dismissed the preemptors application. The matter went to the Board of Revenue and learned member of the Board of Re