JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. The plaintiff is the appellant. This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 26.5.1990 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 17 of 1989 whereby he has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 9.2.1989 passed by VIth Additional Sub-Judge, Ranchi in title suit No. 11/89 dismissing the suit as not maintainable. 2. It appears that a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short the the said Act) was initiated against the appellant by the Collector after annulling the transfer on the ground, inter alia, that the appellant came in possession of the land by virtue of transfer and/or settlement which took place after January, 1946 which is the cut off date under the aforesaid provision. The said proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act was finally decided against the appellant and the said order was affirmed in appeal filed by the appellant before the statutory forum provided under the said Act. 3. The plaintiff-appellant, thereafter, filed a suit for declaration of title and also for a declaration that the order passed under Section 4(h) of the Act was without jurisdiction. After institution of the suit the office gave a note that the suit is not maintainable under the provisions of Section 35 of the said Act. The trial Court, therefore, after hearing the plaintiff-appellant, dismissed the suit as not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 35 of the said Act. The appellant then preferred appeal before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi who, in turn, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the trial Court. Hence this second appeal. 4. From perusal of the plaint of title suit No. 11/89 it appears that the following reliefs were sought for by the plaintiff-appellant: (i) that on adjudication of the plaintiffs right, title and interest the suit may be decreed or in the alternative, if possession is not found, then delivery of possession be given through the process of the Court. (ii) That the plaintiff prays to set aside Section 4(h) proceeding i.e. the order dated 28.11.1985 passed by the Additional Collector in Misc. case No. 2/69-70. (ii) That the plaintiff prays to set aside Section 4(h) proceeding i.e. the order dated 28.11.1985 passed by the Additional Collector in Misc. case No. 2/69-70. (iii) To confirm the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and, in the alternative, if the plaintiff is not found in possession then delivery of possession be given to the plaintiff through the process of the Court. (iv) To grant ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from taking delivery of possession from case No. 2/69-70 which is. pending before the Circle Officer, Ratu till the decision of the suit. 5. Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 reads as under: The Collector shall have power to make inquiries in respect of any transfer including the settlement or lease of any land comprised in such estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind of interest in any building used primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or tenure or part thereof [***] and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made at any time after the first days of January, 1946, with the object of defeating any provisions of this Act or causing loss to the State or obtaining higher compensation there under, and if he is satisfied that ; such transfer was made at any time after the first day of January, 1946, with the object of defeating any provisions of this Act or causing loss to the State or obtaining higher compensation there under, the Collator may, after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard [***] annual such transfer, dispossess the person claiming it and take possession of such property on such terms as may appear to the Collector to be fair and equitable 6. From perusal of Section 4(h) of the Act it is manifestly clear that by this provision the Collector has been empowered to make inquiry in respect of any transfer including settlement or lease of any land comprised in such estate or tenure or transfer of any kind of interest and if the Collector is satisfied that such transfer was made at any time after 1st day of January, 1946 with the object of defeating any provision of the Act or causing loss to the State, then the Collector shall annual such transfer and take possession of the property. 7. 7. It is well settled that the cause of action is a bundle of facts which the plaintiff has to prove before asking the Court to give the relief sought for. In the plaint it is alleged that the land in question was settled in 1942 coupled with issuance of rent receipts. It was further alleged that after settlement the plaintiff came in possession of the land and in the year 1943 the Deputy Commissioner, on the complaint made against the Military contractor by the plaintiff, passed order restraining the contractor from doing any act which may cause damage to the property. Many other facts have also been alleged in the plaint. 8. In view of the above facts, I am of the opinion that the suit ought not to have been dismissed merely because of the provision of Section 35 of the said Act. I am further of the view that the trial Court should have framed all issues including the issue with regard to maintainability of the suit and should have decided all the issues in accordance with law. 9. For the aforesaid reason this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court to decide the suit on merit after framing all the issues and giving findings on those issues.