Prem Prakash & Ors. JUDGMENT VENKATACHALA, J. Raghunath who had lands comorisec in Khasra Nos. 2,5/1 and 6/1 situated in village Macangir, Delhi, as his holding died in the year 1952 leaving behind Vidya Devi alias Vidya Vati, widow of his predeceased first son Ram Narain, his second son Dev Raj and his third son Prem Prakash, as his legal heirs to inherit his holding. When in the year 195354 a jamabanai of that village was held, entry in the revenu records pertaining to the said holding was changed from the name of Raghunath to the names of Vidya Devi. Dev Raj and Prem Prakash. With the coming into force of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954 the do Act, respecting the area of the lands within which the said holding fell, a declaration having been made as required under that Act and the Rules made thereunder on 1st February, 1958 that the said Vidya Devi slias Vidya Vati, Dev Raj and Prem Prakash were the co bhumidars of that holding, they became the cobhumidars earn entitled to onethird share thereof. However, on 9th October, 1973 Vidya Devi, filed a suit as plaintiff therin for partition of her onethird share and separate possession in the said holding before the Revenue Assistant, as provided for under subsection (1) of section 55 of the DL Act against the other cobhumidhars Prem Prakash and Dev Raj by impleading then as defendants1 and 2 respectively in that suit. Defedant2, Dev Raj did not have nay objection for partition and giving separate possession of onethird share out of the said holding to the plantiff as crayed in the suit, indeed, he also claimed for partition and giving of separate posession of his onethird share in the said holding. But, defendant1, Prem Prakash contested that suit. In his defence statement, he pleaded inter alia, that he being in exclusive possession of the said holding eversince the year 195354, he had perfected his title in respect to the whole of the said holding by adverse possession as against the other cobhumidhars and, therefore, question of title was involved in the suit reducing the Revenue Assistant to frame an issue thereon and refer the same to Civil Court for obtaining a finding thereon, as required by section 186 of the DL Act. No doubt, the Revenue Assistant, who framed the issues in that suit based on the pleadings therin framed an issue which read thus: "Whether any question of title is involved in this case which requires any reference to the civil court under section 186 of the DL Act." But, when that issue was considered by the Revenue Assistant as a preliminary issue, he took the view that no question of title which required to be referred to Civil Court under section 186 of the DL Act for obtaining its finding was involved. However, that view was questioned by defendant1 by taking the matter in revision before the Finiancial Commissioner. But, the Financial Commissioner who heard the revision, rejected it by upholding the view of the Revenue Assistant on the said preliminary issue. The reason given by the Financial Commissioner for upholding the view of the Revenue Assistant on the preliminary issue was that the plea of title taken in his defence by defendant1 was to be deemed as untenable within the meaning of explanation to subsection (1) of section 186 of the DL Act in that it was solely intended to out the jurisdiction of the Revenue Assistant in the matter. Defendant1 filed a writ petition, C.W. No. 691 of 1978 in the Delhi High Court ouestioning the correctness of the said orders of the Revenue Ass