The judgment emphasizes the importance of concurrent findings of fact, the need for substantial questions of law to arise from pleadings, and the exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under specific statutory provisions.

S.K.Katriar, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Defendant No. 2 is the appellant against the judgment of affirmance. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11-4-1994, passed by the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, in Title Appeal No. 24 of 1987/20 of 1988 (Sheo Chand Chaudhry V/s. Adalat Hussain and Ors.), whereby he has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 9-4-1987, passed by the learned Munsif, Gopalganj, in Title Suit No. 183 of 1977 (Adalat Hussain and Ors. V/s. Bihar Sarkar and Ors.). The trial Court had decreed the suit which has been affirmed by the learned Court of appeal below. Hence this appeal on behalf of the contesting defendant. We shall go by the descriptions of the parties occurring in the plaint.

2. The case of the plaintiffs (respondents herein) as per the plaint is that Plot No. 93, Khata No. 48, measuring an area of 12 Bighas 19 Kathas and 7 dhurs was Gairmazarua Malik land of Hathwa Raj, the ex-landlord. Out of the total area of this plot, 1 Bigha 2 dhurs is the suit land. Village Dharam Chak was visited by virulent plague in 1932 and many villagers deserted their original homes in the village. These villagers, therefore, shifted their residences to the open and barren field of plot No. 93, who erected temporary structures initially but subsequently built their Pucca and mud-built houses and some lands were brought under cultivation. Even after the plague subsided, these villagers continued residing over Plot No. 93. The plaintiffs also had occupied 1 Bigha and 2 dhurs of Plot No, 93 at the time of plague and had been coming in possession even since then openly to the knowledge of the Hathwa Raj and to all concerned and thus he had acquired an occupancy right over the same. Hathwa Raj vested in the State of Bihar in the year 1952, and the plaintiffs continued to be in possession of the disputed land and thus perfected their title by adverse possession. However, defendant No. 2 (the appellant herein) was a very cunning person and managed to secure a settlement from the Bhoodan Yagna Committee in his favour of the suit land. He as a resident of village Harayan at a distance of 1 k.m. from Dharam Chack and though he had sufficient lands in his own village in the name of his brother as also in his own name, he had been able to secure the settlement by the Bhoodan Committee for the land in village Dharam Chack. This defendant filed a petition for settlement of rent in his name and the Circle Officer reported the matter to the DCLR and the DCLR after fixing rent in favour of defendant No. 2 recommended removal of encroachment of the plaintiffs and other villagers from the suit plot. All the acts of Bhoodan Committee and the DCLR were illegal and mala fide. The order of the DCLR in fixing rent in favour of defendant No. 2 was also illegal. The Karamchari had reported the possession of the plaintiffs and others and so the order of the Circle Officer or DCLR was not sustainable. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed the suit for declaration that he was the occupancy raiyat of village Dharam Chack and he had acquired right and title over the suit land, and the Government of Bihar had no right to fix rent favour of defendant No. 2, and for the consequential reliefs.

3. Defendant No. 1, the Government of Bihar; through the Collector, Gopalganj, and defendant No. 2, appeared and filed W.S. in the lower Court. Their case was almost similar and it was to the effect that the suit as framed was not maintainable. It was, however, admitted that in the year 1932, there was a plague and this had made the villagers shift temporarily to plot No. 93. However, after the plague was over, these villagers went back to their original homes. Only 7 to 8 persons remained on the disputed plot No. 93. It was, however, denied further that the plaintiffs had any possession over 1 Bigha 2 dhurs of Plot No. 93. It was further denied that the plaintiffs had acquired any occupa