JUDGMENT
1. This appeal raises an unusual point of law and has, therefore, been referred to a Divisional Bench for disposal Musammat Mohan Dei, one of the proprietors of a mahal, applied for a perfect partition under the Land Revenue Act sometime in 1911. Ram Charitra, the plaintiff-appellant here, filed an objection claiming that lie was a proprietor of an eight-pies share in the mahal of which partition was sought. The Revenue Authorities proceeded under section in (b) of the Land Revenue Act and directed him to establish his claim in the Civil Court. Rant Charitra accordingly brought a suit but that suit was dismissed on the 29th November 1911. He appealed and the Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's decision and gave him a decree declaring him entitled to the declaration which he sought. This was on the 9th 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 lie 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 January 1918, v 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 was, 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 that no person shall institute any suit in the Civil Court with respect to any of the following matters:
Paragraph (k): Partition or union of mahal except as provided in section in and Section 112.
2. 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 series 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 the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.