A Civil Court is not competent to decide the question of title after the termination of the partition proceedings in a Revenue Court.

This is plaintiff's revision against the decree dated 24-2-1950 passed by the learned District Judge, Shajapur, in second appeal affirming the decrees of the first Appellate Court and of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for a declaration of title. The dispute relates to two annas share in a zamindari in village Berakhedighat, parganna Basoda, District Bhilsa. It was alleged in the plaint that in 1912 a four annas share was purchased from one Krishna Singh jointly by the father of the plaintiff and that of the defendant for a sum of Rs.231/-. The defendants' father Kishore Singh at that time had no money with him and so the plaintiff's father Ganpat Singh had to pay Rs.115/8/- on behalf of Kishore Singh to Kishan Singh. The father of the defendant could not pay the said sum of Rs.115/8 to the father of the plaintiff and therefore by a deed dated 24-12-1912 he relinquished his rights in the said zamindari and abandoned his possession over it. The said deed could not be registered and a formal sale deed could not be executed when Kishore Singh and Ganpat both died. Thereafter in the Khewat the defendant Gajraj Singh was recorded as owner of two annas share, the property remaining joint in the name of the co-sharers. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession for more than 12 years and wanted that the defendant's name should be struck off from the Khewat and that the partition proceedings should be stayed. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the ground that the partition proceedings had come to an end and thereafter the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title could not be entertained. The substantial point in issue was does the decision in partition suit in the court of Assistant Collector (Naib Suba) operates as res judicata? This issue was decided in favour of the defendant and the suit was dismissed by the trial Court and both the appellate Courts have upheld this decision. The plaintiff has now come to this Court in revision.

2. Mr. Patankar, on behalf of the plaintiff petitioner contends that the revenue Court has not made any inquiry in the plaintiff's title, nor has it given any decision as to the ownership of the property. He urges that the question of title was not directly and substantially in issue in the Revenue Court in partition proceedings.

3. From the arguments of the learned counsel on both the sides it appears that the provisions of S.377 Qanoon Mal, Gwalior, Samvat 1983, have been overlooked. For the decision of this suit S.377 is important which rendered into English, runs as follows:

"(1) Those suits which are cognizable by the Revenue Courts under this Act will not be entertained in Civil Courts until there is clear direction to that effect in this Act.

(2) Once a question by a competent Court is decided between the parties to a suit, that decision will operate as res judicata in subsequent suits between the same parties or their representatives."

4. In the Gwalior Act, (i.e., Qanoon Mal) partition proceedings are governed by chapter 9. Section 119(1) mentions that an application for partition can be made only by a co-sharer whose name and share have been entered in the Khewat and who is not shown in the Khewat as "Gair Quabiz" (without possession). It appears from the proceedings that when the defendant made an application under S.119 for partition of his share in the zamindari in dispute, the plaintiff petitioner had raised an objection that the defendant had never been in possession of the zamindari and so he could not file an application under S.119. After inquiry, it was decided on 9-10-1937 that Gajraj Singh defendant had been in possession of the zamindari, and that the entry in Khewat to that effect is correct. The objection of the plaintiff was overruled and one Amin Sheopujan Singh was appointed for actual partitioning the shares. The question is; whether after the partition, a Civil Court is competent to decide the question of tit