1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned District Judge of Birbhum, dated the 28th January 1916, reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge of the same place. The plaintiff brought the suit under the provisions of Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to amend a Record of Rights. The dispute in this case is a dispute between two neighbouring proprietors and, therefore, the case comes within the provisions of Section 102 (dd). The learned District Judge in this case has considered that having regard to the authorities in this Court, the only question between these rival proprietors that he can go into in a suit instituted under the provisions of Sections 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act is the question as to which of these two rival proprietors was in possession of the land in question at the date of the final publication of the Record of Rights. I think that the authorities in this Court do establish that. I have authorities beginning with the decision of Mr. Justice Woodroffe and Mr. Justice Coxe reported as Mohunt Padmalav Ramanuja Das v. Lukmi Rani 12 C.W.N. 8, and that decision is followed by the cases reported as Kali Sundari v. Giriya Sankar 11 Ind. Cas. 184 : 15 C.W.N. 974; Ramchandra Bhany Deo v. Nanda Nandanananda Deb 20 Ind. Cas 298 : 18 C.W.N. 938 : 19 C.L.J. 197 and Pran Krishna Saha v. Trailakhya Nath Chowdhury 27 Ind. Cas. 883 : 19 C.W.N. 911. We are bound by these authorities and we content ourselves by simply saying that following those decisions the present appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.