Civil jurisdiction remains available for title and possession disputes challenging revenue records under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.

Under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, a special revenue remedy for disputes over record-of-rights entries does not, by itself, exclude civil jurisdiction. Clause (ee) in Section 87(1) enlarges the matters cognizable by the Revenue Officer, but it does not expressly or by necessary implication bar a civil suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession challenging revenue entries. Section 258 operates only as a conditional bar where a prior decision under the specified provisions is sought to be varied, modified, or set aside, and exclusion of civil jurisdiction must be clearly established by the party asserting it. A civil suit of this kind therefore remains maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a civil suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession, challenging entries in the revenue records, remains maintainable after insertion of Clause (ee) in Section 87(1) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Chapter XII was read as providing a special remedy before the Revenue Officer for disputes regarding entries in the record of rights, but not as expressly or impliedly excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Section 87(1)(ee) enlarged the class of disputes cognizable by the Revenue Officer, yet it did not say that a civil suit for declaration of title or possession was barred. Section 258 was held to be only a conditional bar, applicable where there had already been a decision under the specified provisions and where a subsequent suit sought to vary, modify, or set aside that decision. The Court also relied on the settled principle that exclusion of civil jurisdiction must be clearly shown, and that the burden lies on the party asserting such exclusion. The shorter limitation for a suit before the Revenue Officer and the presence of express bar provisions elsewhere in the Act supported the conclusion that no absolute ouster was intended.

Conclusion: A civil suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession, including a challenge to revenue entries, is maintainable notwithstanding Section 87(1)(ee) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The contrary view was overruled and the earlier view affirming maintainability was approved.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates a special revenue remedy for disputes concerning record-of-rights entries but does not expressly or by necessary implication bar civil jurisdiction, a civil suit for declaration of title and possession remains maintainable; a subsequent bar on challenging prior revenue decisions operates only when the statutory conditions for that bar are satisfied.

---