The civil court has jurisdiction to determine the rights of the parties to the property in dispute and the shares to which they are entitled, even in cases where partition of revenue-paying properties is involved, and can declare the plaintiff's title and interest in the properties and refer the matter to the Collector for effecting partition.

JUDGEMENT :- This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit was dismissed by the First Appellate Court, reversing the decree of the trial Court. The suit was one for declaration of the plaintiffs title to the land and houses mentioned in Schs. 1 and 2 to the plaint and for khas possession over the same on partition.

2. The plaintiffs case in brief was that defendants 2 to 4 who are sons of one late Sajid Ali are the joint owners of the land described in Sch. I and the house described in para 1 of Sch. 2 to the plaint, the same falling to their share in an amicable partition amongst them and other co-sharers. The house described in para 2 of Sch. 2 was constructed by defendant No. 2 alone and it was his exclusive property. One Dipchand Bhura got a money decree in Money Suit No. 22 of 1952 in the Court of the Munsiff, Karimganj against defendant No. 2. In Money Execution Case No. 95 of 1953 arising out of that decree, the share of defendant No. 2 in the suit property was sold in auction and it was purchased by the plaintiff. This is how the plaintiff became the owner of the suit property, mentioned in Schs. 1 and 2 to the plaint. Defendants 2 to 4 sold another property to one Basanta Kumar Nag Choudhury blat they remained in possession of the property as tenants under the purchaser. Thereafter, Basanta Kumar Nag Choudhury got a rent decree against defendants 2 to 4 for arrear of rent in respect of that property. In execution of that decree he purchased the two-thirds share of defendants 3 and 4 in the land of Sch. 1 and in the house of para 2 of Sch. 2. After his purchase, Basanta Kumar Nag Choudhury sold that property to defendant No. 1 Rebati Mohan Saha. The plaintiff and defendant. No. 1 alone, thus, have become owners of the suit property.

3. The defendant No. 6 has been in occupation of the suit holding in collusion with defendants 2 to 5 without any semblance of right. Defendant No. 5 was once set up by defendants 2 to 4 to file a false criminal case against the plaintiff in respect of the suit property but that case was dismissed. The plaintiff came to know afterwards from the written statement filed by defendant No. 6 that the latter, through one Nagendra Acharyya, predecessor of defendants 13 to 19 obtained an ex parte decree in Money Suit No. 123 of 1956 against the heirs of aforementioned Sajid Ali and in execution of that decree the defendant No. 6 purchased a share in the suit property in Money Execution Case No. 22 of 1957 in the Court of the Munsiff, Karimganj. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 6, in collusion with Nagendra Acharyya obtained that decree by practising fraud on the Court. He accordingly, amended the plaint and added a prayer to set aside the decree in Money Suit No. 123 of 1956 and the proceedings in Money Execution Case No. 22 of 1957, as fraudulent and collusive. In these circumstances the plaintiff filed the snit for declaration of his title to one-third share in the suit land described in Sch. I as well as in the house described in para 1 of Sch. 2 and to the entire house described in para 2 of Sch. 2 of the plaint and also for khas possession over the same, on partition.

4. The defendant No. 1 filed a written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. The suit was contested by defendants 6 and 12 who filed two separate written statements. The other defendants did not enter appearance at all.

5. Defendant No. 6 resisted the suit on various grounds both on law and facts. On facts, he denied that there was a partition amongst defendants. 2 to 4 and their other co-sharers. According to him Sajid Ali, who was the original owner of the property, died leaving three sons (defendants 2 to 4), 4 daughters (defendants 7 to 10) and his widow Sabura Bibi (defendant 11). It was averred by him that the decree in Money Suit No. 22 of 1952 obtained by Dipchand Bhura against defendant No. 2 was fraudulent and collusive and so also the purchase of the plaintiff in execution of the decree in that