Abatement orders in title suits are not decrees or appealable orders when they only record statutory abatement.

An order recording abatement under Section 57B of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 does not finally adjudicate substantive rights, so it is neither a decree nor an appealable order; the proper remedy is revision under Section 115 CPC. A suit principally for declaration of title does not fall within Section 57B merely because the plaint or pleadings challenge the correctness of the record-of-rights, since such entries are only presumptive and do not create title. The abatement orders were therefore set aside and the title suits were directed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order recording abatement of a suit under Section 57B of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 is a decree or an appealable order, and whether it is revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (ii) Whether a suit for declaration of title, accompanied by a challenge to the correctness of the record-of-rights, falls within Section 57B so as to attract abatement.

Issue (i): Whether an order recording abatement of a suit under Section 57B of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 is a decree or an appealable order, and whether it is revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: A decree under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 requires a formal adjudication conclusively determining the rights of the parties in controversy. An order merely recording abatement does not decide the substantive rights of the parties; it is a formal recognition of an abatement that has occurred by operation of law. Such an order does not fall within the class of appealable orders under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Since it is neither a decree nor an appealable order, the proper remedy is revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The order recording abatement under Section 57B is not a decree and is not appealable, but it is revisable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (ii): Whether a suit for declaration of title, accompanied by a challenge to the correctness of the record-of-rights, falls within Section 57B so as to attract abatement.

Analysis: Section 57B does not expressly or by necessary implication exclude the jurisdiction of civil courts to decide questions of title. An entry in the record-of-rights is only presumptive and does not create title. Where the principal dispute in the suit is title, a prayer that the record-of-rights is erroneous, or pleadings assailing its correctness, does not convert the suit into one governed by Section 57B. If Section 57B were applied to such suits, civil adjudication of title would be effectively denied in cases where the record-of-rights is disputed.

Conclusion: Such suits do not abate under Section 57B merely because the record-of-rights is challenged in the plaint or in the body of the suit.

Final Conclusion: The impugned abatement orders were set aside and the suits were directed to proceed in accordance with law, as the civil court retained jurisdiction to decide the title controversy.

Ratio Decidendi: A formal order recording abatement, which does not adjudicate the parties' substantive rights, is neither a decree nor an appealable order; and a title suit is not barred by Section 57B merely because it disputes the correctness of the record-of-rights.

---