The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 35 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, in respect of matters specified therein, and the Additional Collector (Compensation Officer) is the appropriate authority to decide disputes related to compensation for the vesting of zamindari.

R. N. Sahay, J.

1. This is an appeal under Sec.27 of the B. L. R. Act against the order dated 26-11-1979 of the Additional Collector (Compensation Officer), darbhanga, in Miscellaneous Case No.9 of 1978-79. The caseout of which this appeal arises was a proceeding under Sec.26 of the b. L. R. Act in which the appellant being the sole descendant of late Ramakant choudhary who died in 1918 a few months earlier the appellant was born seeks to recover l/3rd share in the compensation awarded by State of Bihar consequent upon the vesting of the zamindari in 1954. The case has a chequered background as would appear from the narrative of the events which culminated in the present proceeding the seeds of litigation having been sown as far as in 1925.

2. The father of the appellant ramakant Choudhary belonged to a family of Wealthy Zamindars and money lenders. The great grand father of the appellant was Raghubar Choudhary who had two sons, namely, chhatradhari Choudhary (died in 1914)and Bhekhdhari Choudhary (died in 1915 ). The parties of this litigation represent the branch of Chhatradhari choudhary. After the death of ramakant Choudhary his widow musammat Parbati Choudhrain, mother of the appellant remained for about a year in her husbands family, and then went away to her own family taking with her the plaintiff who was then an infant having been born in October, 1918 and never returned. In 1920 Parbati choudhrain applied to the Revenue court for registration of her name in the revenue records as having succeeded to her husbands share in the joint property but owing to want of means to prosecute her claim entered into a compromise with the co-sharers of ramakant by which she accepted in full satisfaction, a maintenance allowance of rs.3500/- a year.

3. Five Years later, when the plaintiff was seven years old, her mother arranged to marry her to the son of Babu ajodhia Choudhary. Ajodhiya was a zamindar of means. She brought a suit before the Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga bearing Title Suit No.80/1925. In that suit she claimed for declaration in the share of the father Ramakant in the suit property. The learned Subordinate judge dismissed the suit. In appeal a division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon ble Kulwant Sahay and Hon ble james, JJ. reversed the decree of the subordinate Judge and the appellants suit was decreed by granting the declaration as prayed in the plaint.

4. The defendants preferred an appeal before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Judicial Committee confirmed the decree of the High court. Sir John Wall in delivering the judgment of the Board observed:

"it is, however, well settled that a member of a joint family may effect a separation in status by giving a clear and unmistakable limitation by his acts or declaration of a fixed intention to become separate, even though he goes on living jointly with the other members of the family and there is no division of property (Bal Krishna V/s. flam Krishna, 58 IA 220)and that is the sort of separation which the High Court has found to have taken place in the present case. "

The Judicial Committee further found that the father of the appellant had decided to put on record clear and unmistakable declarations of his inten tion to separate by filing six suit, for his separate shares of the rents of lands belonging to the family. The Judicial committee observed that the High court was justified in holding that ramakant had sufficiently and unmistakably manifested his intention to separate.

5. The Judicial Committee did not accept the claim of the appellant that her father was in exclusive possession of the properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint, on partition from respondent No.1 and father 01 respondent No.6 though separation in status was actually found and the reversionary right of the appellant was held to be intact inspite of the compromise in the land Registration Case. In other words, separation was found in status without their being