JUDGMENT

1. The order which we are called upon to revise in the present rule was male by the Subordinate Judge of Patna under sec. 59 of the Bengal Land Registration Act of 1876 The circumstances under which the order in question was made are not in controversy before this Court and may be briefly outlined. One Nawab Sabdar Hossain Khan, a wealthy zemindar of Husnabad, in the District of Monghyr, died on the 7th August 1905. He left considerable landed properties in the Districts of Monghyr, Gya and Patna. The Petitioner who alleges that she was the daughter of the maternal uncle of Sabdar Hossain was married to him and the parties lived as husband and wife till the death of the former. Upon the death of her husband she took possession of his estates, the bulk of which was situated in the Districts of Monghyr and Gya. On the 15th November 1905, the present opposite party, Mussammat Kulsum, who claims to be the sister of the father of Sabdar Hossain, applied for registration of her name in the Collector-ate in respect of the properties situated in the District of Patna upon the allegation that as Sabdar Hossain was governed by the Shia law, the Petitioner, his childless widow, was not entitled to the estate and that she as sister of the father of the deceased had succeeded to the properties by right of inheritance. On the 9th January 1906, the widow, Umatool Mehdi, preferred objection on the ground "that she was entitled to the estate by right of inheritance as the daughter of the maternal uncle of Sabdar Hossain and that in any event she was entitled to retain possession of the properties till her dower which was alleged to have been fixed at a sum of 5 lacs of rupees and 35 gold mohurs, was satisfied out of the profits. The Deputy Collector heard the parties at considerable length and on the 17th February 1906 made an order of reference to the Civil Court under sec. 55 of the Land Registration Act. The widow applied to the superior revenue authorities but the Collector, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue successively declined to interfere. The case was then taken up by the Subordinate Judge of Patna and he held what is described as a summary enquiry into the question of the right to possession in respect of the interest in the estate in dispute but which in substance is as full an investigation into the question of title and possession as can take place in a regular suit. The Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion upon the evidence that the widow was in possession of the properties by receipt of rent from the lessees; that she was not entitled to the estate by right of inheritance; that the dower-debt claimed by her did not entitle her to take or keep possession of the properties; that the legal possession in the disputed properties must be taken to be in Mussamat Kulsum and that consequently the objection of the widow must be disallowed and possession delivered to the rightful heiress. The widow now seeks to have this order discharged and upon her application the rule under consideration was issued. The learned counsel who appears in support of the rule has contended that the proceedings before the Subordinate Judge are vitiated by two defects, namely, first, that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to determine the matters in controversy as there was no valid reference to him by the Collector under sec. 55 of the Land Registration Act, and secondly, that the Subordinate Judge his acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction, if he had any, and he ought to have held that not only the actual possession of the properties but also the right to retain possession of them till the satisfaction of the dower-debt, was in the Petitioner. It has been argued on the other hand by the learned Advocate-General, first, that as the Subordinate Judge exercised a special statutory jurisdiction in aid and at the instance of the Revenue Courts, this Court has no jurisdiction to revise his orders and secondly, that the Subor