Karamat Husain, J.
1. The facts of the case are these:
Prem and Har Sahai instituted a suit against Musammat Nathia and Musammat Rukia. In that suit, the parties compromised their dispute on the 14th of September 1892. At the end of the compromise, it was said that the defendants Nathia and Rukia would continue to be the owners in possession of the sir land. A decree in the terms of the compromise was passed on the 14th of September 1892 in which the plaintiffs' claim was decreed but there was no mention regarding the continuation of the sir land in the possession of Nuthia and Rukia. On the basis of the said decree, Prem and the representatives of Har Sahai, applied for mutation of names and objection was taken by Nathia and Rukia. The dispute was again compromised on the 17th of July and a joint application by Prem, the representatives of Har Sahai, Nathia and Rukia was made. In the application it was distinctly stated that Wathia and Rukia were the owners and in possession of the sir land. An order on the same date for mutation of names in favour of the applicants was made and it was distinctly stated in the order that the sir would be in possession of Nathia and Rukia. Prem and the representatives of Har Sahai then instituted a suit for profits against Nathia and Rukia in which they claimed the profit of the sir. Nathia and Rukia took objections to it and the Assistant Collector, by his order of the 31st of October 1896, dismissed the claim for the profits of the sir land on the ground that Nathia and Rukia were the owners of it.
2. Kewal Ram, the transferee of the share of Prem and Har Sahai, applied for partition including the sir land on the 30th of April 1907. On the 24th of July 1907, an objection was made on behalf of Musammat Nathia that the whole of the sir land belonged to her and that it should not be partitioned. On the 5th of August 1907, her objection was disallowed as premature. The partition of the zamindari and nr land was completed and confirmed by the Collector on the 31st of October 1907. /On the 10th of February 1908, a second objection was made by her which was disallowed as beyond time.
3. The plaintiffs then brought a suit in the Civil Court for a declaration that they were the sole owners of the whole sir and that no compensation could be given to the defendants for their share in the sir land. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance.
4. On appeal, the decree of the Court of first instance was reversed by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiffs have preferred a second appeal to this Court. Two points are urged before me by their learned Vakil. The first is that Section 111 of the Land Revenue Act has no application inasmuch as the question of proprietary title had been determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction prior to the application for partition and the second is that the suit as brought is cognizable by the Civil Court.
5. The facts which have already been set out show that a partition was effected by the Revenue Court and for the purposes of this appeal it is quite immaterial whether that partition was effected regularly or with material irregularity. If the appellants here were aggrieved by the irregular procedure followed by the partition officer, they had their remedy; but after the completion of the partition, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by the provisions of Section 233(k) is ousted. I agree with the lower appellate Court in the conclusion arrived at by it that the suit is barred by the provisions of Section 233(k). In this view of the case, it is unnecessary for me to determine whether the question of proprietary title was or was not determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction prior to the application for partition.
6. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.