Im in agreement with Adocate Raghab ji, Advocate niranjan Ji and Advocate Archana ma'am..... Law is well established that Civil Court has power to declare title irrespective of the fact whether the matter is sub judice before any revenue officer or not. The job of Revenue Officer is to maintain records of lands for the purpose collecting revenue. Thus the records of the Revenue Officer does not create title, But in absense of any other proof, the Records of Revenue Officer has got presumptive value in coming to a conclusion regarding title. Revenue Officer is always bound by the decree of the Civil Court......
But I wud differ from Advocate Raghab ji on one count that the judgment of civil court is not always a judgment in rem.
Rather the judgment of a civil court in most of the cases is a judgment in persomnam and only in certain cases it is judgment in rem e.g - probate proceedings, insolvency proceedings etc.
Now coming to the question whether it is always true that the judgment of the civil court is binding on revenue authorties, law is well settled that the judgment rendered by Civil Court can be declared to be void by revenue Authorities, in any proceeding before them concerning the Judgment of Civil Court, if the Judgment of the Civil Court is void on account of lack of jurisdiction. This is so because "judgment rendered by any court can be declared to be void by any other forum in any collateral proceeding if the court which pronouced that judgment had no jurisdiction to pronounce it".......