JUDGMENT 1. This is an Appeal on behalf of the first Defendant in a suit instituted by the Plaintiff-Respondent under sec. 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The case for the Plaintiff is that the disputed lands are comprised in his Mauza Taka Bakra, Tauzi 1980, and that though he is in possession thereof, they have been erroneously declared by the Settlement Officer to be in the possession of the first Defendant as included in his Mauza Nayabushan, Tauzi 1981. The Courts below have investigated the question of title and held that the disputed lands form part of the mauza of which the Plaintiff is the proprietor ; but upon the question of possession, they have not recorded any clear finding. The occupants of the lands are the second and the sixth Defendants ; and it has not been found by either Court whether they held as tenants under the Plaintiff or the first Defendant. Notwithstanding the absence of such a finding the Courts below have made a decree in favour of the Plaintiff. In support of the present appeal by the first Defendant, it has been contended on the authority of the decision in Padmalav v. Lukhi Rani 12 C. W. N. 8 (1907), that the Courts below have misapprehended the scope of the investigation under sec. 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, that they have determined the question of title between rival proprietors which they were not competent to decide in a suit instituted under that section and that they have left undecided the only question they were competent to investigate, namely, the question of present possession. In our opinion, this contention is well-founded and must prevail. 2. On behalf of the Respondent the decision in Padmalav v. Lukhi Rani 12 C. W. N. 8 (1907) has been criticized, and it has been suggested that the matter should be referred to a Full Bench for decision. We are of opinion that no ground has been established for such reference. Mr. Justice Woodroffe in the case mentioned held that in a suit under sec. 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act the question to be investigated is one of possession of the disputed land, and that the Plaintiff is entitled to have the record corrected in accordance with such possession. Mr. Mr. Justice Woodroffe in the case mentioned held that in a suit under sec. 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act the question to be investigated is one of possession of the disputed land, and that the Plaintiff is entitled to have the record corrected in accordance with such possession. Mr. Justice Coxe held that in a proceeding under the Bengal Tenancy Act no question of title between rival proprietors, considered merely as proprietors, can legitimately arise. The Statute deals with the relations of landlords and tenants, and it is no part of its purpose to regulate disputes between rival proprietors, except in so far as such disputes affect their relations with their tenants. We entirely agree in the view taken by Mr. Justice Coxe that the revenue officer, in deciding disputes between rival proprietors under sec. 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, is confined to the question of possession alone. We are of opinion that this is the correct exposition of the law, and we would ourselves have independently adopted the same view, even if the point had not been previously decided in Padmalav v. Lukhi Rani 12 C. W. N. 8 (1907). The decisions in Gulab Misser v. Kalanund Singh 14 C. W. N. 884 (1910), Pandab Dowari v. Anand Kesun 14 C. W. N. 897 (1910), Mukti Nath v. Rameshur 15 C. W. N. 57 (1910) and Kali Sundari v. Girija Sankar 15 C. W. N. 974 (1911), which recognise the principle that the question of title is open for examination in a civil suit, lead to the same conclusion. In this view it is clear that the decision of the Special Judge cannot be supported. The result is that the appeal is allowed, the decree of the Special Judge set aside and the case remanded to him in order that he may determine upon the evidence on the record whether the Plaintiff or the first Defendant was in possession of the disputed land through their tenants who are parties Defendants to the suit. As the object of the suit is to have the record, as finally published, amended, the question of possession must necessarily be considered from the standpoint, whether the record, as finally published, is correct. The costs of this appeal will abide the result.