Judgment R. N. Sahay, J. 1. This is an appeal under Sec.27 of the B. L. R. Act against the order dated 26/11/1979 of the Additional Collector (Compensation Officer), darbhanga, in Miscellaneous Case No.9 of 1978-79. The case out of which this appeal arises was a proceeding under Sec.26 of the b. L. R. Act in which the appellant being the sole descendant of late Ramakant choudhary who died in 1918 a few months earlier the appellant was born seeks to recover l/3rd share in the compensation awarded by State of Bihar consequent upon the vesting of the zamindari in 1954. The case has a chequered background as would appear from the narrative of the events which culminated the present proceeding the seeds of litigation having been sown as far back as in 1925. 2. The father of the appellant ramakant Chaudhary belonged to a family of Wealthy Zamindars and money lenders. The great grand father of the appellant was Raghubar Choudhary who had two sons, namely, chhatradhari Choudhary (died in 1914)and Bhekhdhari Choudhary (died in 1915 ). The parties of this litigation represent the branch of Chhatradhary choudhary. After the death of ramakant Choudhary his widow musammat Parbati Choudhrain, mother of the appellant remained for about a year in her husbands family, and then went away to her own family taking with her the plaintiff who was then an infant having been born in October, 1918 and never returned. In 1920 Parbati choudhrain applied to the Revenue court for registration of her name in the revenue records as having succeeded to her husbands share in the joint property but owing to want of means to prosecute her claim entered into a compromise with the co-sharers of ramakant by which she accepted in full satisfaction, a maintenance allowance of rs.3500 a year. 3. Five years later, when the plaintiff was seven years old, her mother arranged to marry her to the son of Babu ajodhiya Choudhary. Ajodhiya was a zamindar of means. She brought a suit before the Subordinate Judge, Darbhan-ga bearing Title Suit No.80/1925. In that suit she claimed for declaration in the share of the father Ramakant in the suit property. The learned Subordinate judge dismissed the suit. In appeal a division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon ble Kulwant Sahay and Hon ble james, JJ. She brought a suit before the Subordinate Judge, Darbhan-ga bearing Title Suit No.80/1925. In that suit she claimed for declaration in the share of the father Ramakant in the suit property. The learned Subordinate judge dismissed the suit. In appeal a division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon ble Kulwant Sahay and Hon ble james, JJ. reversed the decree of the subordinate Judge and the appellants suit was decreed by granting the declaration as prayed in the plaint. 4. The defendants preferred an appeal before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Judicial Committee confirmed the decree of the High court. Sir John Wallis delivering the judgment of the Board, observed, "it is, however, well settled that a member of a joint family may effect a separation in status by giving a clear and unmistakable limitation by his acts or declaration of a fixed intention to become separate, even though he goes on living jointly with the other members of the family and there is no division of property (Bal krishna V/s. flam Krishna, 58 i. A.220) and that is the sort of separation which the high Court has found to have taken place in the present case. " The Judicial Committee further found that the father of the appellant had decided to put on record clear and unmistakable declarations of his intention to separate by filing six suits, for his separate shares of the rents of lands belonging to the family. The Judicial Committee observed that the High Court was justified in holding that Ramakant had sufficiently and unmistakably manifested his intention to separate. 5. The Judicial Committee did not accept the claim of the appellant that her father was in exclusive possession of the properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint, on partition from respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.6 though separation in status was actually found and the rever sionary right of the appellant was held to be intact inspite of the compromise in the land Registration Case. In other words, separation was found in status without their being division of properties by metes and bounds. The appellant, however, could not take possession of her fathers estate because she was to inherit her father estate after the death of her mother hence the properties remained in possession of Ramshray prasad Choudhary and Bindeshwari prasad Choudhary, father of respondent no.6. 6. The appellant, however, could not take possession of her fathers estate because she was to inherit her father estate after the death of her mother hence the properties remained in possession of Ramshray prasad Choudhary and Bindeshwari prasad Choudhary, father of respondent no.6. 6. The mother of the appellant srimati Parbati Devi alias Parbati Choudhrain died on 2/11/1969. Thereafter ramshray Pd. Choudhary and Bindeshwari Pd. Choudhary father of respondent no.6 partitioned the entire properties and tauzies including the interest of the appellant between them half and half. After vesting of Zamindari Ramshray Pd. Choudhary and Bin deshwari Pd. Choudhary father of respondent No.6 filed returns of the tauzies of their respective shares which constituted the whole of the estate belonging to the family of late Chatradhari Choudhary. The compensation case records in this respect were numbers as 1 316/337 of 1954-55 and 614 of 1957-58 respectively. These records were pending before D. C. L. R. , Samastipur. At the time of payment of ad interim compensation a petition on behalf of the appellant was filed before Anchal Adhikari, dalsingsarai on 27/4/1961 praying therein that as the compensation bonds were not transferable so in terms of Section 32 (4) of the B. L. R. Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)compensation bonds to the extent of 1/3rd share of appellant should be deducted from the compensation payable to Ramshray Pd. Choudhary and bindeshwari Pd. Choudhary, father of respondent No.6 and should be deposited in the name of the Collector, darbhanga which the appellant would get after the death of her mother. The anchal Adhikari, Dalsingsarai, directed appellant to appear before D. C. L. R. , samastipur for hearing the matter and also sent to the case records to the d. C. L. R. , Samastipur. 7. Before the D. C. L. R. , Samastipur, respondent No.1 along with his four sons and Sri Bindeshwari Pd. Choudhary, father of respondent No.6, appeared. Ramshray Pd. Choudhary and his sons filed an objection petition on 18/8/1961 in which he substantially disputed the right, title and interest and competence of the appellant to file an application for withholding the payment of compensation amounts to the respondents. Sri Ramshray Pd. Choudhary did not even make a whisper of the fact that the return filed by him was also in respect of such properties which would be characterised as his self acquired properties. 8. Bindeshwari Pd. Sri Ramshray Pd. Choudhary did not even make a whisper of the fact that the return filed by him was also in respect of such properties which would be characterised as his self acquired properties. 8. Bindeshwari Pd. Choudhary, father of respondent No.6, appeared before the D. C. L. R. but did not contest. After hearing the D. C. L. R. , Samastipur sent both the case records to Additional collector, Darbhanga for passing the necessary orders. The then Collector, darbhanga heard the matter again and ordered that the compensation to the extent of l/3rd share of the appellant be deducted from both the compensation payable to Ramshray Pd. Choudhary, respondent No.1, and Bindeshwari Pd. Choudhary, father of respondent No.6, in A. I. Case Nos.316/337 of 1954-55 and 614 of 1957-58 and be deposited in the court. It was further held therein that the dispute in regard to the payment of compensation be finally decided by competent court in respect of 1/3rd share. Thereafter the parties were heard on 6/12/1971 and the compensation officer rejected the application of the petitioner and directed the payment of compensation only in respect of 1/3rd to the appellant in respect of the properties in Title Suit No.80/25 and not beyond it. It was also directed that the compensation of remaining tauzies be paid according to the records available with regard to the title in the compensation case records. Ramshray Pd. Choudhary, for the first time, raised the bogey of self acquisition made by him in respect of the properties covered by the return filed by him. 9. The appellant being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of compensation officer dated 6-12-71 filed an appeal before this Court. The appeal was disposed of by Hon ble Mr. Justice J. Narain, by his Judgment dated 2nd january, 1975. Narain, J. , observed in his judgment that according to the case of the respondents there is no objection for payment of compensation in respect of 1/3rd share of the property which was the subject matter of T. S. No.80/1925 but they had. objection to the property which was not included therein. According to the appellant properties in the hands of the respondents beyond those mentioned in the title suit had, in fact, been acquired by them from out of the joint family property. Learned Judge further observed that the learned Addl. objection to the property which was not included therein. According to the appellant properties in the hands of the respondents beyond those mentioned in the title suit had, in fact, been acquired by them from out of the joint family property. Learned Judge further observed that the learned Addl. Collector took the view that although in 1962 the parties were asked to get the matter decided by a competent civil court yet this opportunity was not availed of and that no conclusion could be drawn, as contended by the appellant, that properties were acquired out of the joint family property. It was observed that no evidence was adduced in support of the rival contentions and that it was for the appellant to prove her case and in this view of the matter he ordered that the appellant can get compensation in respect of 1/3rd share of the property which was the subject matter of litigation. The learned Judge having considered the rival contention observed as follows: "i do not think that only on oral arguments and on the ground that since no party had adduced evidence and the matter could not be allowed to linger indefinitely, the appellant should be paid compensation in respect of one third of the suit property only. I think the parties must be in writing what they have to say in respect of different items of properties mentioned in the returns and adduced evidence in respect of their respective contentions mentioned in the returns and adduced evidence in respect of their respective contentions and the learned addl. Collector should record his finding on the case of the parties. That the above procedure is warranted will also appear from the fact that under Sec.35 of the act. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in respect of the matter specified therein. For that the reasons set out above the case is remitted to the learned Addl. Collector who will afford opportunity to the parties concerned to put their submissions in writing and take down evidence that they went to adduce and then record his decision. With this observation the appeal is allowed and the case is remitted to the court below for an expeditious disposal. Cost shall abide the result of the order to be passed by the learned Addl. Collector, Darbhanga. " 10. With this observation the appeal is allowed and the case is remitted to the court below for an expeditious disposal. Cost shall abide the result of the order to be passed by the learned Addl. Collector, Darbhanga. " 10. Pursuant to the direction of this Court the parties filed their respective written statements before the Addl. Collector, Samastipur. This time also respondent No.2 did not make any mentioned about his self acquisition in written statement inspite of the direction of this Court in that regard. The addl. Collector by order dated 26/12/1979 held that there is no necessity to decide the question involved in this case because the dispute could only be resolved by a competent Civil Court. 11. Section 35 of the Bihar Land reforms Act provides that 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 chapter 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. 12. J. Narain, J. had already that the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in respect of the matters specified therein. The Addl. Collector flouted the direction of J. Narain, J. The appellant has prayed that the order of Addl. Collector dated 20/11/1979 may be set aside and the appellant should be permitted to withdraw the l/3rd share of compensation deposited in Court. 13. It is obvious that opportunity was given to respondent No.1 to adduce evidence in support of his claim but he did not try to substantiate his claim. In my opinion, the objection of the respondent before Addl. Collector was raised under serious misconception. That apart respondent No.1 never claimed that some of the property in the return was his self acquired property. The entire onus was on him to substantiate his claim but he failed to do so. 14. In my opinion, the objection of the respondent before Addl. Collector was raised under serious misconception. That apart respondent No.1 never claimed that some of the property in the return was his self acquired property. The entire onus was on him to substantiate his claim but he failed to do so. 14. So far judgment in F. A. No.168 of 1927 which was preferred against the decree of Sub-Judge in T. S. No.80/1925 is concerned, it is pertinent to point out that the appellant had filed a suit only for declaration to the effect that her father Babu Rama Kant Choudhary died while living separately in mess and business from the defendants 1st party, as such after his death the estate left by him devolved by inheritance upon her mother as a Hindu widow with limited powers. The plaintiff included in the plaint a list of all the properties forming the estate of her father which she came to know on enquiry at the time of institution of the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. The decree was reversed and the suit decreed in following terms: "it is ordered and decreed that this appeal be allowed, the decree of the court below be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be and the same is hereby decreed and it is hereby declared that babu Kant Choudhary died while living separately in mess and business from the defendants 1st party, that as such after his death the estate left by him devolved by inheritance upon the defendant 2nd party as a Hindi widow with limited powers, that the ekrarnama dated 15/7/1920 in no case and on no account is and shall be operative and legal as against the reversionary heir to the estate of Babu Rama Kant choudhary after the death of defendant 2nd party and that on the other hand the reversionary heir to the said estate neither is nor shall be bound in any way by the said ekrarnama. And it is further ordered and decreed that the respondents to pay the appellant the sum of rupees three thousand three hundred seventy six and annas two only as per detail at foot, being the amount of cost incurred by the letter in this court. And it is further ordered and decreed that the respondents to pay the appellant the sum of rupees three thousand three hundred seventy six and annas two only as per detail at foot, being the amount of cost incurred by the letter in this court. And it is further ordered and decreed that the respondents to pay to the appellant the sum of rupees one thousand six hundred and twenty seven annas four and pies nine only being the costs incurred by the latter in the Lower Court. Dated this 12th day of April in the year of our lord one thousand nine hundred and thirty two. " The decree does not mention in respect of the property described in schedule of the plaint. 15 Learned Counsel for the appellant has rightly contended that the entire 16 annas estate, with all its contents, in the shape of property moveable or immoveable properties owned by the three branches became the subject matter of the property and the entire estate was the subject matter of the suit and was disputed properties and not only the properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The Privy Council found separation but there was no division of properties and no separate exclusive property in possession of rmakant Choudhary as given in the list of plaint as there was no division of properties. No question was raised regarding list of properties claimed by the plaintiff as exclusive estate of ramakant Choudhary after separation and division by metes and bounds. 16. In this is view of the matter the appeal must sceed The respondent no.6 had not raised any objection before the compensation Officer or contested in this Court. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of Addl. Collector, samastipur under appeal is hereby set aside and the Addl. Collector, samastipur is hereby directed to make payment to the appellant of the entire compensation money as deposited in court vide the order dated 20/12/1963 passed by Addl. Collector in A. I. No.315/337 of 1954-55 and 614 of 1957-58. The appellant is entitled to costs assessed at Rs.5,000.00 payable by the respondent No.1. The Addl. Collector shall carry out the aforesaid direction within six weeks of receipt of the orders. Appeal Allowed.