JUDGMENT Maclean, C.J. - This is a suit for the alteration and correction of certain entries made in the record-of-rights published under Chap. X of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The real question is whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to maintain the suit. Both the Munsif and the Subordinate Judge have held that the suit is not maintainable and that the Plaintiffs should have pursued the special remedy which is given them either under sec. 106 or under sec. 108 of the Bengal Tenancy Act; they have not done so. It appears that at the Instance of Defendant No. 1 a survey was made and a record-of-rights prepared by a duly appointed Settlement Officer, in respect of all lands situated in village Sarulia. In the course of the settlement proceedings, the Plaintiffs claimed certain lands as rent-free and certain other lands as included in their zamindari which the Settlement Officer had recorded as forming part of Defendant No. l's zamindari. Both these objections were heard by the Settlement Officer, and the Plaintiffs' claims were not successful. Entries were then made in the finally published record-of rights, and Defendant No. 1 on the basis of such entries applied, within two months for the settlement of a fair and equitable rent. Then the Plaintiffs instituted the present suit. The question is whether the suit will or will not He. The Bengal Tenancy Act was passed nearly a quarter of a century ago but no authority has been produced before us to show that the suit will lie. This portion of the Act deals with a special matter--the settlement by the revenue authority of the record of-rights: and, a special procedure is provided for challenging the decision of the revenue officer. Presumably the proper course for the Plaintiffs would have been to have instituted a suit under sec 106 and, under sec 108, on their application, the revenue officer could have revised his decision under secs. 105, 106, 107 of the Act. But neither of these courses was taken. I agree with both Courts that the present suit does not lie : and I think that the appeals must be dismissed with costs. Doss, J. 2. I agree. I desire to add a few words. 105, 106, 107 of the Act. But neither of these courses was taken. I agree with both Courts that the present suit does not lie : and I think that the appeals must be dismissed with costs. Doss, J. 2. I agree. I desire to add a few words. Sec. 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act has been amended by Act III of 1898, and by that Act much wider powers have been conferred on the revenue officer than what he bad under the original section as It stood before Its amendment. Under sec. 106 as amended, the revenue officer has power to hear and decide, amongst several other things, any dispute between the landlords of neighbouring estates. That implies that the revenue officer has power to decide question relating to boundaries, for the purposes of preparing the record-of-rights. That being so, it is difficult to see how a regular suit can be brought in the Civil Court for the same purpose. Moreover, the provision contained In the second paragraph of sec. 106 points to the same conclusion. It runs thus 'Provided that the revenue officer may, subject to such rules as the local Government may prescribe in this behalf, transfer any particular case or class of cases to a competent Civil Court for trial." If, in addition to or in lieu of the special remedy prescribed by sec. 106, a regular suit may be brought in a Civil Court for the same purpose, it is difficult to appreciate the utility of a provision which empowers the revenue officer to transfer a case to a competent Civil Court for trial.