This second appeal is against the appellate judgment and decree dated 30.6.87 of the Assistant District Judge, Darrang, in TA No.30 of 1987 thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 8,3.82 of the Munsiff, Mangaldoi in TS No.48 of 1973 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. The case of the plaintiffs (respondent here) in brief, was that the suit land which is a paddy land measuring 6 bighas 4 kathas 11 lecass covered by Dag No. 228 (old) 313 (new) of Annual Patta No. 11 of Village Banipara (Plaint Schedule Ka) was reclaimed by the plaintiff No. 1 and the husband of the defendant No. 2 and made it fit for cultivation. Annual Patta was also issued in their names. In the month of Shrawana 1971 BS the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs. Hence the suit for eviction and for other reliefs. The defendants (appellants here) contested the suit asserting that the defendant No. 1 was possessing the land for more than 22 years thereby perfectly his right by adverse possession and it was also stated that the suit land fell within the Tribal Belt and the Revenue Authority wrongly issued the patta. 3. The trial Court decreed the suit and the first appellate Court also maintained the decree of the trial Court. Both the Courts found the title of the plaintiff over the suit land being the Annual Lease Patta holder and that the defendant were trespassers over the suit land. The suit was filed on 27.9.73 and was decreed by the trial Court on 8.3.82. During the pendency of the appeal in the first appellate Court, the defendants filed a certified copy of the order dated 25.7.78 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in Case Na.46 RS/78 by which the Annual Lease Patta standing in the name of the plaintiff was cancelled. The first appellate Court also upheld the title of the plaintiff and also further held that the cancellation of Annual Lease Patta did not affect the right of the plaintiff as the right to get the relief was to be determined as was available to the plaintiff on the date of the institution of the suit. 4. The first appellate Court also upheld the title of the plaintiff and also further held that the cancellation of Annual Lease Patta did not affect the right of the plaintiff as the right to get the relief was to be determined as was available to the plaintiff on the date of the institution of the suit. 4. The substantial question of law formulated at the time of admission of this appeal are as follows : (1) Whether the learned Courts below are justified in decreeing the suit based on title by virtue of an Annual Patta which was cancelled by the Assam Board of Revenue long before the impugned judgments and decrees were passed ? (2) Whether the learned Courts are justified in declaring the title of the plaintiff in issue No.3 in view of the failure of the plaintiff to prove in Court an existing patta and in view of the provisions of Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation? ; - (3) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are without jurisdiction in view of the judgment and order dated 25.7.78 passed by the Assam Board of Revenue in Case No.46 RA/78 canceling the patta which cannot be questioned in a civil Court under section 167 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation ? (4) Any other ground which the appellant can take at the time of hearing. 5. Both the Courts below held that even if the suit land fell within the Tribal Belt and (he provision of Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation was in force in-the area, still the plaintiff No. 1 was a resident of Harishingha and BaniparaGabn of Kalaigaon Tribal Belt and as such he could hold the land as the holder of the Annual Lease Patta and cancellation of the patta by the Revenue Board happened after filing of the suit. Thus, the crucial point will be whether the remedy available on plaintiff at the time of the suit will be taken away or stultified by this subsequent happening. Another angle will be whether the civil Courts jurisdiction is affected or ousted by the provision of the Revenue law. 6. Regarding the affect of the happenings or events, subsequent to the filing of the suit, the learned counsel for both the sides have also relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court. Another angle will be whether the civil Courts jurisdiction is affected or ousted by the provision of the Revenue law. 6. Regarding the affect of the happenings or events, subsequent to the filing of the suit, the learned counsel for both the sides have also relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court. Some of the important decisions are quoted below. 7. In the case of Pasuputeti Venkateswarlu vs. Motor and General Traders reported in AIR 1975 SC 1409 Supreme Court held that the subsequent event disabling the landlord from seeking eviction of the tenant was to be taken note of and relying upon the decision of the Federal Court reported in AIR 1941FC 5 held; "For making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the current realities, the Court can, and in many cases must, take cautions cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed." 8. In the case of Vidya Sagar vs. Smti Sudesh Kumari & others reported in AIR 1975 SC 2295 the plaintiff got a decree in a pre-emption suit and also deposited the price. In the meantime, the Uttar Pradesh Zamindar Abolition and Land Reforms, Act, 1950 was extended in the district of Nainital where the property situated, with effect from 1,7.1970. After the enforcement of the Act in the area an execution proceeding was instituted and an objection was taken on the ground that the decree become unexecutable in view of the section 336 of the newly extended Act which provides for extinguishment of the right of pre-emption. The Apex Court held that the decree for pre-emption was not capable of execution. 9. In the case of Bai Dosabai vs. Mathurdas Govindas reported in AIR 1980 SC 1334 the Apex Court modified the decree passed by the High Court considering the events and the changes in law occurred during the pendency of the appeal. 10. In the case of Hasmat Rai & another vs. Reghunath Prasad reported in AIR 1981 SC 1711 the suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of the personal requirement of the landlord was decreed. During the pendency of the appeal the plaintiff acquired possession of another premises. 10. In the case of Hasmat Rai & another vs. Reghunath Prasad reported in AIR 1981 SC 1711 the suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of the personal requirement of the landlord was decreed. During the pendency of the appeal the plaintiff acquired possession of another premises. The Supreme Court held that the bonafide requirement of the plaintiff must exist till the possession is obtained and moulded the relief. 11. In the case of Rameshwar & others vs. Jot Ram & others reported in AIR 1976 SC 49 the Supreme Court considering some earlier decisions laid down two propositions (in the word of Krishna Aiyer J): "Firstly, it is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. This is an emphatic statement that the right of a party is determined by the facts as they exist on the date the action is instituted. Granting the presence of such facts, then he is entitled to its enforcement. Later developments cannot defeat his right because, as explained earlier, had the Court found his facts to be true the day he sued he would have got his decree. The Court's procedural delays cannot deprive him of legal justice or rights crystallised in the initial cause of action. Again, the impact of subsequent happenings, Courts of justice may, when the compelling equities of a case oblige them, shape reliefs cannot deny rights to make them justly relevant in the updated circumstances. Where the relief is discretionary, Courts may exercise this jurisdiction to avoid injustice. Likewise, where the right to the remedy depends, under the statute itself, on the presence or absence of certain basic facts at the time the relief is to be ultimately granted the Court even in appeal, can take note of such supervening facts with fundamental impact." 12. The above decisions of the Apex Court which still hold the field have fairly settled that though normally the relief is granted on the basis of the facts which existed on the date of filing of the suit, the Court can and has to look into and consider the subsequent events and may mould the relief in appropriate cases even to the extent of declaring a lawful and otherwise executable decree to have become unexecutable due to subsequent happenings. 13. 13. The plaintiff brought the suit on 27.9.73 on the basis of an Annual Lease Patta. The Annual Lease Patta was cancelled by the Board of Revenue by its order dated 25.7.78 passed in Case No.46 RA/78. The judgment of the Board of Revenue is an inter parties judgment and vide its order dated 16.5.87 the first appellate Court admitted the certified copy of the judgment of the Board of Revenue. The reason or the ground for cancellation of the Annual Lease Patta is that the suit land was let out to the defendant on Adhi basis. And Board of Revenue held that it was in violation of the rules framed under section 171 of Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (hereinafter refer to as Regulation). 14. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the cancellation of the Annual Lease Patta by a competent authority on the ground of violation of provisions contained in Chapter X of the Regulation and the rules framed thereunder extinguished the right of the plaintiff over the land and the learned counsel further submitted that civil Courts shall have no jurisdiction in this regard to declare any civil right of the plaintiff contrary to or against the decision and finding of the Revenue Court. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that ban on jurisdiction of the civil Courts as contained in section 167 and 154 of the Regulation will not oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court to decide question of title of the parties. 15. It is settled law that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil Courts is not to be readily inferred, but that such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. 16. Chapter X is a special provision for the protection of the backward classes. Section 160 provides that notwithstanding anything contained earlier in the Regulation, the State Govt may by Gazette notification adopt such measures as it deems fit for the protection of backward classes. And those classes of people entitled lo protection are also specified by Gazette notification. Areas to which Chapter X are to be applied are also notified in the Gazette. Section 160 provides that notwithstanding anything contained earlier in the Regulation, the State Govt may by Gazette notification adopt such measures as it deems fit for the protection of backward classes. And those classes of people entitled lo protection are also specified by Gazette notification. Areas to which Chapter X are to be applied are also notified in the Gazette. Section 161 (1) provides that on such application, the disposal of land by lease for ordinary cultivation, the nature and extent of rights conveyed by annual or periodic leases, the termination or forfeiture of such rights, the ejectment of persons who have no right in the land, the management or letting out in farm of land in certain circumstances by the Deputy Commissioner, and other allied or connected matters shall so far as possible, be governed by the provisions of this Chapter and the Rules made thereunder. Again, section 162 (2) provides that notwithstanding any thing to the contrary in any law, usage, contract, or agreement no person shall acquire or possess by transfer, exchange, lease, agreement or settlement any area or areas constituted into belts or blocks in contravention of the provisions of sub­section (1) of section 162. There are provisions with regard to disposal of land for the purpose of cultivation (section 163), rights of the settlement holders and land holders (section 164) and for ejectment and eviction (section 165). Section 166 protects civil servant from any civil suit for anything done in good faith under the Chapter. Section 167 as mentioned above, is the clause excluding the jurisdiction of the civil Court in any of the matters covered by this Chapter. There are provisions for investment of the power of the Deputy Commissioner upon the Revenue Officer and also provisions for filing of appeals and revisions. And under section 171 the State Govt may make Rules for carrying out the provisions of this Chapter. Again, a comprehensive Rules has been framed under section 171 of the Regulation the same is found in the Chapter IX of the "Rules under the Land and Revenue Regulation (Assam)". Thus, the provisions of the Chapter X with the Rules made thereunder constitute almost a complete Code. And the intention of the legislature was to provide special provisions for the protection of the backward classes in many respects provided for in the Act and Rules. Thus, the provisions of the Chapter X with the Rules made thereunder constitute almost a complete Code. And the intention of the legislature was to provide special provisions for the protection of the backward classes in many respects provided for in the Act and Rules. And this provisions have overriding effects over other provisions in the Regulation. 17. In this case admittedly, the defendants are tribals belonging to the classes covered by section 160 (2) and plaintiffs are non tribal though living in the tribal area covered by section 161 of the Regulation. The competent revenue authority in the exercise of its jurisdiction vested by law, cancelled the Annual Lease Pattta for violation of the provision of law contained in the Chpater X and Rules framed thereunder. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that while exercising its power, the Board of Revenue never acted in excess of its jurisdiction nor committed any procedural irregularity and as such the validity of the order cannot be questioned or agitated before the civil Court. I find considerable force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The finding recorded by the Board of Revenue and also ground for cancellation of Annual Lease Patta cannot be reopened before the civil Court. To this extent the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred by section 167. As the patta was cancelled, the plaintiff had no subsisting right over the suit land at time of the passing of the decree by the civil Court. Thus the plaintiff had no title on the basis of the cancelled patta. 18. The learned counsel for the respondents again submitted that as per the decision of the case of Somnath Berman vs. Dr. SP Raju & another reported in AIR 1970 SC 846 , the plaintiff's suit has to be decreed on the basis of prior possession. The reported case (AIR 1970 SG 846) is distinguishable from the present case, inasmuch as that the plaintiff in the reported case was found to be in possession of the suit land from 1930-1945 and the defendant trespassed over it and as such on the facts of that case, the Apex Court held that in the absence of better right of possession of the defendant over the suit land, the plaintiff's prior possession entitled him a decree. In our present case at hand, both the Courts below never recorded any finding that the plaintiff ever possessed the suit land though both the Courts below only held that the right of the defendants over the suit land was not perfected by adverse possession. Even in para 1 of the plaint, the plaintiff admitted that the suit land was jointly reclaimed by the plaintiff and the husband of the defendant No. 2 and made it fit for cultivation. Thus, the above decision of the Supreme Court will not be of any help to the plaintiff in the present case. 19. For the reasons and finding above, it is held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. In the result, both the decrees of the Courts below are not aside, the suit is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, parties are directed to pay their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed.