Ryves and Daniels, JJ.
1. This appeal raises an unusual point of law and has, therefore, been referred to a Division Bench for disposal.
2. Musammat Mohan Dei, one of the proprietors of a mahal, applied for a perfect partition, under the Land Revenue Act, some time in 1911. Ram Charitra, the plaintiff appellant here, filed an objection claiming that he was a proprietor of an eight pies share in the mahal of which partition was sought. The revenue authorities proceeded under Section 111(1)(b) of the Land Revenue Act and directed him-to establish his claim in the civil court. Ram Charitra accordingly brought a suit, but that suit was dismissed on the 29th of November, 1911. lie appealed and the appellate court reversed the trial court and leave him a decree declaring him entitled to the declaration which he sought. This was on the 9th of April, 1912. After the decision of the first court and before the decision of the appellate court, it appears that partition proceedings were completed. It must be the case that Ram Charitra took no steps to inform the revenue court either that he intended to appeal or had appealed against the decision of the trial court. Nor did he take any steps, even after the case was decided in his favour by the appellate court, in the revenue courts, either by way of appeal or by an application for review. On the 17th of January, 1918, that is, seven years afterwards, he brings this suit for the recovery of possession of the eight pies share which he claimed. His plaint entirely ignores the partition and his claim is based on the decision of the appellate court in 1912. The only defence to the suit with which we are now concerned is that it was barred by Section 233(k) of the Land Revenue Act. This was the view taken by the lower appellate court, and, in our opinion, it was right. Section 233 provides I hat no person shall institute any suit in the civil court with respect to any of the following matters:
Paragraph (k): Partition or union of mahals except as provided in Section 111 and Section 112.
3. This suit is clearly not a suit such as is contemplated by Section 111 of the Land Revenue Act. No doubt the former suit was, but this suit clearly is not. It has been held in a aeries of rulings by this Court that Section 233(k) bars a suit in the civil court which attempts to disturb the title to land as established in a partition in the revenue court. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.