Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the above named plaintiffs-appellants against the judgment and decree dated 23.2.80 and 5.3.80 respectively in Title suit No. 147/14 of 1975/1978 passed by Sri Ram Chandra prasad, the then Additional Subordinate Judge, Ranchi dismissing the plaintiffs suit. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit lands, details of which were given in the schedule of the plaint and for confirmation of possession or in the alternative for delivery of possession of the same and for any other reliefs, if deemed fit and proper. 3. It is admitted that parties are Kurmi Mahto and according to the plaintiffs, they are Kurmabansi Khhatriya cast Hindus governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. But they are governed in respect of inheritance by the rule of primogeniture. One Mangal Mahato was the predeccesor in interest of both the plaintiffs and the defendant, He being the common ancestor held immovable properties including the suit properties. He left behind two sons, namely, Harihar Mahato and Ram Charan Mahato and as per rule of primogeniture, Harihar Mahato only inherited the properties and Ram Charan Mahato was entitled for maintenance only. The genealogy of the parties may be given as follows: MANGAL MAHATO ------------------------------------------------------------- | | Harihar Ram Charan | | ---------------------------- Mahadeo | | | Madan Panu Mohan Lal | | (Defdt.) ------------------------ | | | | | Ajgut Kamal Nath Tika Ram | | P.3 Most. Futi | | | (P.6) | | | | | | | | | | -------------- | | | | | | | |Sheo Shankar Budhram| -------------------- |(P.9) (P.10) | | | | | Yugal Kishore Narayan | | (P.7) (P.8) --------------- | | | | | | | | Parsu Ram Parmanand | Vishwa Vijay Digambar (P.1) (P.2) | (P.11) (P.12) | ----------------------- | | Anand Gaur (P.4) (P.5) 4 But Ram Charan Mahato, although not inheritor, filed Partition suit No. 376/10 against Harihar Mahato for partition of his half share in the ancestral properties, but the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, it is alleged by the plaintiffs that Ram Charan Mahato filed Title suit No. 73/18 and a decree was passed allowing four annas share in the ancestral properties in lieu of his maintenance by judgment dated 6.12.1919 and four annas share of Ram Charan Mahato was carved out from the ancestral properties in execution case No. 18/22 on which Ram Charan Mahato took possession of his four annas share and separated himself from the plaintiff. Harihar Mahato died in 1929 leaving behind Madan Mahato as his eldest son who according to the rule of primogeniture, succeeded to the family property, but he remained joint with his brother Punu Mahato. During the R.S. Survey, Khewat No. 3 was prepared in the name of Madan Mahato and khewat No. 4, which is subordinate to Khewat No. 3, was recorded in the name of Ram Charan Mahato. But in the said survey, Ram Charan Mahato illegally got Khata No. 273 recorded in his name as Kabil Lagan although it was recorded under Khewat No. 3 and further he got the lands of Khata No. 309 (Bakast lands of Harihar Mahto) recorded as his Bakast under Khewat No. 4. On the basis of said illegal recording, Madan Mahato brought Title suit No. 3/35 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Ranchi against Ram Charan Mahato for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the aforementioned lands illegally recorded in the name of Ram Charan Mahato and also over tenants under him. Ram Charan Mahato and those tenants in the lands were made defendants No. 2 to 49 in that suit. On contest the suit was decreed on 26.7.39 against Ram Charan Mahato and the tenants. The portion where Ram Charan Mahato was in possession, decree was passed for khas possession of the lands and for symbolic possession regarding the lands where the tenants were in occupation. Ram Charan Mahtos son Mahadeo Mahato preferred appeal against that decree, as in the meantime Ram Charan Mahato died, being Title appeal No. 123/39. In that appeal a compromise was arrived at as regards the lands and the disputed lands alongwith other lands were held to be possessed by Madam Mahato and as such a compromise decree was passed in respect of lands and contested decree for mesne profits and costs of the lower court, the said decree was by the Judicial Commissioner. Ranchi on 31.3.44. Ranchi on 31.3.44. But again Mahadeo Mahato went in second appeal before this High Court but the decree of Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi was confirmed and the second appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the decree of the appeal was executed by the predecessor of the plaintiffs Madam Mahato in execution case No. 44/48 and in that execution, the present defendant Mohan Lal Mahato was made party as his father Mahadeo Mahato died, In the meantime and Khas possession was taken by the plaintiffs predecessor on 4.12.49 and 31/12/49 through Pleader Commissioner Then the lands through Pleader Commissioner. Then the lands in dispute came in Khas possession of the plaintiff ancestor Madan Mahato and he continued in peaceful possession thereof. On 1.1.56 the tenure interest of Madan Mahato vested in the State of Bihar and the lands in dispute and the other lands which were in Khas possession of Madan Mahato became his raiyati under the State of Bihar and since the time of vesting Madan Mahto continued in possession of the lands in dispute alongwith other lands as raiyat under the State of Bihar. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that Madan Mahato filed K. form for the Khas lands for fixation of rent on the vesting, but the rent for the disputed khatas was not fixed for a long time. Madan Mahato died in 1962 in jointness under the Mitakshara Law with his own sons and grand-sons who are the plaintiffs in the suit and after the coming in force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the plaintiff No. l to 8 succeeded to Madan Mahato and the disputed land alongwith other properties of Madan Mahato continued to be under the possession of plaintiff No. l to 8. The other plaintiffs i.e. plaintiffs No. 9 to 12 are the sons of the plaintiffs No. 1 to 8 and grand sons of ancestor Madan Mahato. Plaintiff No. 1 to 8 amicably partitioned the properties among themselves by a registered deed of partition dated 10.7.70 and are enjoying of the properties according to their share, as per the deed of partition. Plaintiff No. 1 to 8 amicably partitioned the properties among themselves by a registered deed of partition dated 10.7.70 and are enjoying of the properties according to their share, as per the deed of partition. When no rents were fixed by the State of Bihar after the vesting in favour of Madan Mahato, plaintiffs in the year 1971-72 filed afresh application for fixation of rent in their names in respect of the land of Khata No. 273 and 309 before the Circle Officer, Silli, and the case was registered as Mutation case No. 27/71/72, but the case was dismissed on 1.12.71 on objection being filed by the defendant. Then the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the D.C.L.R. Ranchi which was registered as appeal No. 1 of 1972-73 and was allowed on 13.7.73 and the case was remanded for afresh decision on the basis of D.P in Title suit No. 3/35. The C .O. after remand held in favour of the plaintiffs by order dated 7.9.73. The defendant again preferred an appeal No. 18 of 1973-74 before the D.C.L.R., Ranchi and the same was also dismissed on 8.7.74. But in the meantime, the defendant started a criminal dispute regarding one of the plots of Khata No. 309 mentioned in Schedule-B of the plaint. A case was registered under Sec. 144 Cr. P.C. between the parties and after objections being filed, the same was converted into a proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C, but as the law then was it was referred by the Executive Magistrate to Civil Court under Sec. 146 Cr. P.C. Again there was fresh dispute raised in the year 1972 with regard to some of the lands in Khata No. 273 mentioned in Schedule-A and the proceeding registered under Sec. 144 Cr. P. C was again converted into a proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. against the plaintiffs. The Executive Magistrate Ranchi declared possession of the defendant by order dt. 6.6.75 in M. case No. 1399/72. 5. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that after vesting of the properties under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, a portion of Schedule B land in plot No. 2345 was acquired by the State for construction of Canal under the Minor Irrigation Scheme and in that acquisition proceeding .10 acres of plot allotted to the defendant in Title suit No. 73/18 and .14 acres of the plaintiffs were included. But as per the request of the defendant, plaintiff No. 7 had allowed the entire compensation to be received by defendant as he was in distress although the defendant was never in possession or entitled to compensation in respect of .14 acres of plot No. 2345. According to the plaintiffs, they are paying Irrigation tax on produce of wheat and paddy in the disputed land and Kharif Parcha and Rabi Parcha were also issued by the Circle officer, Ranchi Anchal of the Irrigation Department to the plaintiffs, Thus the plaintiffs case is that they have acquired valid title to the suit properties by remaining in exclusive possession of the same since 1949 to the full knowledge of all concerned including the defendant and his predecessor-in-interest. Because of the erroneous decision arrived at in the 145 Cr. P. C case in respect of Schedule-A lands and the continuation of the criminal proceedings in respect of Schedule-B lands, the plaintiffs have no other alternative but to file this suit for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit properties and for confirmation of possession and in the alternative Khas possession. As per the plaint 6.6.75 was the cause of action for the suit when there was an adverse decision against the plaintiffs in the 145 Cr. P.C. proceeding. 6. In the written statement filed by the defendant, it was contended that the plaintiffs have got no cause of action and that the averments made in the plaint are all incorrect and that the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit because of the bar under Sec. 35 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and Sec. 258 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 . It is also contended that the suit is barred by limitation, adverse possession and also by ouster. It was also objected to that the suit has not been valued properly and the price of the property would not be less than Rs. 50,000.00 and the plaintiff must pay court fee on the same. 7. It is also contended that the suit is barred by limitation, adverse possession and also by ouster. It was also objected to that the suit has not been valued properly and the price of the property would not be less than Rs. 50,000.00 and the plaintiff must pay court fee on the same. 7. On facts, it is the contention of the defendant that on the vesting of the intermediary in the State of Bihar, the defendant applied for fixation of rent under Sec. 5, 6 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and rent of the some of the lands are in Khas possession of the defendant including the suit lands, the rent, were fixed in Rent Fixation/Case No. 1164 of 1955-56 by order dated 10.9.56 and M. form was prepared in his name. The rent of rest of the lands in Khas possession of the defendant have also been fixed in Rent Fixation Case No. 44/62 and 130/62. The plaintiffs did never file any appeal against the said order of fixation of rent and hence orders have become final under Section 8 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and Sec. 258 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. In view of the vesting of the properties in the State of Bihar and fixation of rent under Sec. 5, 6 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, a new right has been created in favour of the defendant and conferred on him by operation of law and as such the defendant has become an occupancy raiyat in respect of the lands in respect of which rent was fixed in his favour including the lands in suit and it was recognised by the State of Bihar. In respect of rule of primogeniture as averred in the plaint, the defendant had controverted the same in his written statement by contending that the parties are Kurmi Mahto of Chotanagpur, a backward class, but they are never Khatriyas and they are governed by the ordinary law of Hindu Law. According to the defendant, after the death of original owner Mangal Mahato, his two sons became the owners of the property as two co-sharers and all allegations brought by the plaintiffs are contrary to law and incorrect. According to the defendant, after the death of original owner Mangal Mahato, his two sons became the owners of the property as two co-sharers and all allegations brought by the plaintiffs are contrary to law and incorrect. According to the defendant, Madan Mahato himself filed petition under Sec. 5, 6 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 in respect of the lands in his Khas possession and the rent in respect of the said land was fixed in Rent Fixation Case No. 2299/61-62 and M. form was also prepared in his name. According to the defendant, the judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 73/1918 and alleged delivery of possession obtained in 1922 were only paper transaction and had no practical effect. The parties continued to be in possession same as before according to cadestral survey records of rights and Harihar Mahato and Ram Charan Mahato each had half and half share in the whole of the properties and accordingly, R.S. records of rights were prepared and finally published in the year 1935. On Harihar Mahtos death, all the members of the joint family inherited the same came in possession on whole of the family properties jointly. According to the defendant, Khata No. 273 was recorded in the name of defendants predecessor-in-interest but it was wrongly mentioned as raiyati land under Khewat No. 3 which should have been recorded as Bakst Land under Khewat No. 4. According to the defendant, his predecessor Ram Charan Mahato was all along in actual physical possession and thereafter it came in possession of the defendant at the time of intermediary interest was vested in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. As the lands were found in actual physical possession of the defendant, the rent rolls were prepared in his name as a raiyat having occupancy right under the State of Bihar and he has been paying rent to the State of Bihar. The defendant has denied of any delivery of possession in favour of the plaintiffs predecessor and Ram Charan Mahato, the predecessor of the defendant continued to be in possession of the lands till his death and after his death, his son Mahadeo Mahato came in possession and on his death, the defendant continued to be in possession. The defendant has denied of any delivery of possession in favour of the plaintiffs predecessor and Ram Charan Mahato, the predecessor of the defendant continued to be in possession of the lands till his death and after his death, his son Mahadeo Mahato came in possession and on his death, the defendant continued to be in possession. According to the defendant, Madan Mahato never claimed possession over the lands before the Revenue Authority and he did not file any application for fixation of rent of the lands. He was never under Khas possession of those lands at the time of vesting. The lands in which Madan Mahato was in actual Khas possession M. form was prepared in his name and rent was fixed and no rent was ever fixed in respect of the suit lands in favour of Madan Mahato rather it was fixed in favour of the defendant alone. It is the further contention of the defendant that the partition deed referred to in the plaint is a sham and farzi transaction only to create some right in favour of some of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit lands. The suit lands were illegally included in the partition deed only to create confusion regarding possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lands. It is the further contention of the defendant that the plaintiffs started litigation in the shape of Mutation proceedings and also proceedings under Sec. 144, 145 Cr. P.C, but they failed in their attempt when possession was declared in favour of the defendant by the Executive Magistrate. The defendant was in actual possession of the land which were acquired for the purpose of preparation of canals he was paid the compensation and none of the plaintiffs had ever any claim on the compensation and as such no payment was made in favour of any the plaintiffs. The statement that on request of defendant the plaintiff No. 7 who was the Mukhiya of the village allowed him to take the whole payment, is sheer lie. It is further stated that the Parcha issued in the name of the plaintiffs were only fabricated and created documents in collusion with the employees of the Irrigation Department in favour of the plaintiffs. When the defendant came to know of those Parchas, he filed objection to strike off the name of the plaintiff, but the same was rejected. It is further stated that the Parcha issued in the name of the plaintiffs were only fabricated and created documents in collusion with the employees of the Irrigation Department in favour of the plaintiffs. When the defendant came to know of those Parchas, he filed objection to strike off the name of the plaintiff, but the same was rejected. Then he preferred an appeal in the court of Additional Collector, Ranchi which is still pending. 8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed in the court below: i. Have the plaintiffs cause of action for the suit? ii. Is the suit maintainable as framed? iii. Is the suit barred under Sec. 35 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 ? iv. Is the suit grossly under valued and the court fee paid not sufficient? v. Is the suit barred under Sec. 258 of the C.N.T. Act? vi. Is the suit barred by limitation and adverse possession? vii. Are the plaintiffs entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit? viii. Is the rule of primogeniture prevalent among the parties? ix. To what relief or reliefs, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled? 9. In order to prove their respective cases, both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence before the trial court. Plaintiffs side examined as many as ten witnesses and exhibited 12 documents being exhibit No. 1 to 12. On the other hand, the defendants side examined 17 witnesses and exhibited ten documents being exhibit A to exhibit J. 10. In deciding issue No. 4, learned court below took up the same as preliminary issue and the suit valuation was raised from Rs. 6,000.00 to Rs. 43,500.00 and advolrem court fee was paid by the plaintiffs. The vital issue being issue No. 3 and 5 were decided against the plaintiffs holding that the present suit is barred under Sec. 35 of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and also under Section 258 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 . Issue No. 8 regarding rule of primogeniture was also decided against the plaintiffs on the basis of evidence of P.W. 9 who happens to be the plaintiff No. 8 in the case. Issue No. 6 regarding limitation and adverse possession, has also been decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiffs. Issue No. 8 regarding rule of primogeniture was also decided against the plaintiffs on the basis of evidence of P.W. 9 who happens to be the plaintiff No. 8 in the case. Issue No. 6 regarding limitation and adverse possession, has also been decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiffs. Issue No. 7 has also been decided against the plaintiffs and issues No. 1,2 and 9 were decided against the plaintiff on the basis of decision of other issues. Thus, the plaintiff suit was dismissed with costs. 11. After this appeal was admitted in the court it was found that the parties to the suit had already taken back some of their documents and as such order was passed for re-filing of the documents. Plaintiffs had taken back exhibit-1 to exhibit-1/c which related to valuation matter. Defendant had taken away of the documents filed by them from exhibit-A to exhibit-]. On submission of learned Counsel for both the parties that as the valuation point, as decided by the learned court below, has not been challenged in the appeal, re-filing of exhibit-1 to 1/c by the plaintiffs- appellants was ignored by an order dt. 25.9.91, but the defendant respondent was asked to file their documents, namely, exhibit-A to exhibit-J within one month. But the documents were not filed and time to time on prayer being made from the side of the respondent, the date for filing of the exhibits from the respondents side were extended. Ultimately. The defendant-respondent failed to file their documents in the appeal. It was ordered on 28.11.91 by this Court that if the defendant-respondent failed to file their documents (exhibit-A to J) then those documents will not be taken into consideration at the time of hearing of this appeal. 12. It appears from the lower court records that the exhibits of the defendant are of the following nature: 1.Exhibit A series :-- Rent receipts 2.Exhibit B series :-- Canal receipts 3.Exhibit C series :-- Canal parcha 4.Exhibit D :-- Copy of the order in Rent Fixationcase No. 1164 of 1955-56 dated 10.9.1956. 5.Exhibit D/l :-- L form in the above Rent fixation case. 6.Exhibit D/2 :-- M form in the above Rent fixation case. 7.Exhibit D/3 :-- K form in the above Rent fixation case. 8.Exhibit E :-- Order in Rent fixation case No. 130/1962. 5.Exhibit D/l :-- L form in the above Rent fixation case. 6.Exhibit D/2 :-- M form in the above Rent fixation case. 7.Exhibit D/3 :-- K form in the above Rent fixation case. 8.Exhibit E :-- Order in Rent fixation case No. 130/1962. 9.Exhibit F :-- Order in Rent fixation case No. 44 of 1962. 10.Exhibit G :-- Order of Additional Collector in Mutationcase. 11.Exhibit H :-- Order in 145 Cr. P.C. case. 12.Exhibit I :-- Order of Additional Collector in Mutation case. 13.Exhibit J :-- Order of Circle Officer, Silli in respect of releasing rent from defendant. 13 On perusal and scrutiny of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned court below had practically decided the case on the basis of maintainability issue. The judgment is very cryptic one in respect of decision regarding the facts of the case and the decision arrived at are not on the basis of discussions on the factual matters and the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties have never been discussed in the cryptic judgment. 14. Issue Nos. 3 and 5 are the vital issues with respect to maintainability of the suit. It appears that learned court below approached the case on a wrong assumption that the plaintiffs suit is with respect to challenge of the decision arrived at under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in favour of the defendant and that the rent fixation under Sec. 5, 6 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 in favour of the defendant. Practically, it has never been stated in the pleadings of the defendant that the fixation of rent in favour of the defendant was under the provision of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 or during the course of survey while the survey was under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The bar of the Civil suit is under Sec. 258 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. When any decision arrived at by the appropriate authorities on the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, it can never be challenged in a civil suit and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. The jurisdiction of Civil Court is wide enough and it can not be restricted unless there is specific bar under any law for the time being in force. 15. Sec. 258 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act runs as follows: 258. The jurisdiction of Civil Court is wide enough and it can not be restricted unless there is specific bar under any law for the time being in force. 15. Sec. 258 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act runs as follows: 258. Bar to suits in certain cases : -- Save as expressly provided in this Act, no suit shall be entertained in any Court to vary, modify or setaside, either directly or indirectly, and (decision), order or decree of any Deputy Commissioner or Revenue-Officer in any suit, application or proceeding under Sec. 20, Sec. 32, Sec. 35, Sec. 42, Sec. 46, Sub-sec. (4), Sec. 49, Sec. 50, Sec. 54, Sec. 61, Sec. 63, Sec. 65, Sec. 73, Sec. 74-A, Sec. 75, Sec. 85, Sec. 86, Sec. 87, Sec. 89, or Sec. 91(proviso), or under Chapter XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, or XVII, except on the ground of fraud or want of jurisdiction (and every such decision, order or decree shall have the force and effect of a decree of a Civil Court in a suit between the parties and, subject to the provisions of this Act, relating to appeal. shall be final). 16. No whore in this suit any decision arrived at by the appropriate authorities under the chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, as contained in the above section, have ever been challenged . No where it has been stated that fixation of rent in favour of thev defendant. No were under any provision of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Only in the plaint, it has been stated that the plaintiffs have got right, title and interest over fee suit lands on the basis of previous decree obtained and the subsequent proceedings etc. were said to be in conformity with the previous decree in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and Khas possession obtained through the process of the Court. It has been held by this Court as reported in A.I.R. 1931. Patna pege 31 Chnrku Mahata and others V/s. Mahendra Nath Rai and Ors. and 1987 PLJR page 354 Parithos Maity V/s. Ghasiram Maity and Anr. and Shri Radhagobinda Jew and Ors. V/s. Panu Mahto and Ors. It has been held by this Court as reported in A.I.R. 1931. Patna pege 31 Chnrku Mahata and others V/s. Mahendra Nath Rai and Ors. and 1987 PLJR page 354 Parithos Maity V/s. Ghasiram Maity and Anr. and Shri Radhagobinda Jew and Ors. V/s. Panu Mahto and Ors. that a suit for title and possession can never be a bar under Sec. 258 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 , even if there were facts in the case regarding proceedings between the parties under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. Specific bar is contained in the above Section when there is challenge with regard to orders and decision arrived at by the appropriate authorities under different Sections of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. It appears that learned court below had just casually held that the suit is barred under the provision of Sec. 258 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 . Entries made in the record of rights during the survey operation do not create any conclusive proof regarding title of the person whose names has been recorded, the same can be challenged in the Civil Court in a regular title suit. If the title is based on other factors, the presumption of entries is only with respect to possession which is again rebuttable one. 17. Similar is the case in respect of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 . Bar under Sec. 35 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 runs as follows: 35. Bar to jurisdiction of civil courts in certain matters : -- No suit shall be brought in any Civil Court in respect of any entry in or omission from a Compensation Assessment roll or in respect of any order passed under Chapters II to VI or concerning any matter which is or has already been subject of any application made or proceedings taken under the said Chapters. 18. The plaintiff suit in the present case is on the basis of title and the case of action for the suit is with respect to the cloud created due to declaration of possession of the defendant in proceeding under Sec. 145 Cr. P.C. Fixation of rent as is stated in the impugned judgment under Sec. 5 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act is not only improper, but it shows non-application of Judicial mind. P.C. Fixation of rent as is stated in the impugned judgment under Sec. 5 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act is not only improper, but it shows non-application of Judicial mind. Sec. 5 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act relates to homesteads of intermediaries to be retained by them as tenants for which fixation of rent is to be done. Similarly Sec. 7 relates to buildings together with lands on which such buildings stand in the possession of intermediaries and used as golas, factories or mills to be retained by then on payment of rent. No where such rent have been fixed under these provisions in favour of the defendant as there is no such averment by the defendant in the written statement No paper have also been submitted as it is revealed from the impugned judgment itself to that effect. Similarly Sec. 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act does also not specifically applicable in respect of fixation of rent in favour of the defendant. The status of Harihar Mahato and then Madan Mahato were of Zamindar of village Lota as is admitted by D.W. 5, 7, 9 and 10. The defendant or his predecessor claimed tenancy after the vesting of the State and such tenancy may not be the tenancy of intermediary within the meaning of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. In such a position, rent fixed in favour of the defendant may not be for the purpose of Sec. 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Even if that be not the position that the fixation of rent was under Sec. 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, then also Sec. 35 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 can not be a barred for a suit by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and for possession. Only because rents were fixed in favour of the defendant, as claimed by them, the right of the plaintiffs can not be taken away by the bar under Sec. 35 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 for coming to the Civil Court for declaration of their title, interest and possession over the suit property on the basis of judicial pronouncement made earlier and possession confirmed by way of judicial execution process. Reference may be made to that effect from 1984 PLJR page 473 (Budhu Dusadh and Ors. Saudagar Dusadh and Ors. Reference may be made to that effect from 1984 PLJR page 473 (Budhu Dusadh and Ors. Saudagar Dusadh and Ors. V/s. Mangani Devi alias Asha Devi and after her Bachi Devi and Ors.). It can again be stated that the monumental decision of the Privy Council as reported in 1940 Privy Council page 105 (Secretary of State V/s. Mask & Co.) is still a good law and the different enactments made after the independence of India creating some bar can not stand in any way in challenging any decision in the Civil Court arrived at by any authorities other than the civil court unless the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is specifically taken away. Mutation or ren receipts even if granted in favour of the defendant can not stand as a barrier in filing of a suit by the adversary i.e. plaintiffs for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit lands. Rent receipts or mutation can only make presumption regarding possession, but again these are only a rebuttable presumption. Thus, when the plaintiffs suit, as stated elaborately while stating the pleadings of the parties, is based on title on the basis of previous judgments of the Civil Court, the suit can not be said to be barred either unde Sec. 35 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 or under Sec. 258 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Thus, the issues No. 3 and 5 decided in the impugned judgment is incorrect and the same ought to have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs and not in favour of the defendant. The decision arrived at under these two issues are hereby set aside and it is held that the suit is maintainable not being barred under the provision of Bihar Land Reforms Act and Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. 19. Issue No. 8 regarding rule of primogeniture and its applicability to the parties of the suit has been decided against the plaintiffs on the basis of the statement made by P.W. 9 Narayan Mahato (plaintiff No. 8) but the learned court below did not consider at all the judicial pronouncement in partition suit No. 376/1910 and subsequent suit being Title No. 73 of 1918 have not at all been considered. It is not the case of the parties that the rule of Primogeniture was available to them earlier but by the go of the day, they have adopted the Hindu Mitakshara Law and the rule of Succession thereon bearing aside the rule of Primogeniture. Thus, the decision tinder issue No. 8 seems to be not proper in view of the facts stated above. A vital decision on the basis of a stray statement of one of the plaintiffs without taking into consideration of the judicial pronouncement made earlier is definitely bad. 20. Issue No. 6 was also not decided properly and it appears that the learned court below did not consider the fact that the plaintiffs have come up with this suit when their title and possession have been clouded due to decision made in the 145 Cr. P.C. proceedings, from the date of decision of the 145 Cr. P.C. the plaintiffs are within the time Moreover, the plaintiffs case is based on title and as such Article 65 of the Limitation Act is applicable. Moreover, the decision arrived at under this issue is not on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties as to whether the defendant had acquired adverse possession against the plaintiffs and as such the suit is barred by limitation. Thus, it can not be said apperently without going into the discussions of the evidence elaborately that the suit is barred by limitation or by adverse possession. Other issues have been decided on the basis of decision of the maintainability issue and the limitation point. 21. There is very much difficulty of this Court in discussing the cases of the parties of the evidence on record in absence of the documents filed on behalf of the defendant and exhibited in the case as exhibits A to J as mentioned earlier. 22. Mr. N.N. Mahto appearing for and on behalf of the respondent did not argue anything except submitting that he could not be able to make the respondent to re-file the documents which had already been taken away. 23. On the other hand, Mr. 22. Mr. N.N. Mahto appearing for and on behalf of the respondent did not argue anything except submitting that he could not be able to make the respondent to re-file the documents which had already been taken away. 23. On the other hand, Mr. M.Y. Eqbal appearing for and on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants has strenuously argued that in view of the order passed by this Court regarding non-consideration of the exhibits on the defendants side during the course of hearing of the appeal, the appeal may be disposed of on merit without considering those documents. But while going through the pleadings of the parties and also the evidence recorded in the case, it is found that roper adjudication might not be possible without going through the exhibits made in the case in favour of the defendant, for appreciating the evidence on record on behalf of the defendants and to some extent that of the plaintiffs, the document of the defendants were found to be most necessary to be looked into. Practically, some of the evidence on the side of the defendant become redundant without reference to the exhibits of the defendant. Thus, I find that for proper adjudication a chance should be given to the defendant-respondent to furnish their exhibits in the court below within two months next from this date and the case is remanded for decision on other issues framed in the suit on factual position. But it is held that the maintainability issue is decided by this appellate court in favour of the plaintiffs. Limitation point is kept open for arriving at a just decision after considering the evidence on record. Similar is the case with respect to rule of Primogemture It is made clear that if the defendant failed to submit the exhibits, taken out by them, then the learned court blow would be at liberty to decide the case on the basis of materials on record only, if necessary by expunging the evidebce on record with regard to the exhibits A to j. 24. The appeal is thus allowed and the impugned judgment and decree is hereby set aside and the case is sent back on remand to the court below for deciding the suit afresh on the basis of the directions and observations made above. 25. In the circumstances of the case, no cost is awarded to either of the parties. 26. The appeal is thus allowed and the impugned judgment and decree is hereby set aside and the case is sent back on remand to the court below for deciding the suit afresh on the basis of the directions and observations made above. 25. In the circumstances of the case, no cost is awarded to either of the parties. 26. As the suit is long pending one and the evidence are complete, the learned court below after giving a chance of the filing of the exhibits from the side of the defendant within a time limit shall proceed to decide the suit on the basis of materials on records after hearing the arguments afresh to be placed by both the parties.