SIBRI BAI Vs. LAJHRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of order dated 30/08/2003 passed by the Second Additional District Judge (FTC) Jashpur, Chhattisgarh in Civil Appeal No.25-A/03 by which, learned lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 10/04/2000 passed by the Trial Court and decreed plaintiff's suit.

(2.) The respondent / plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of title based on sale deed dated 18/07/1967 (Ex.P/3) on the pleadings that the plaintiff's father Jairam had purchased the disputed property vide sale deed dated 18/07/1967 from Late Aandhu, husband of defendant No.1- Phulobai and father of other defendants. After purchase, revenue records were mutated in the name of plaintiff's father Jairam. Plaintiff's father died in the year 1982. Thereafter, plaintiff's name was recorded. According to the plaintiff, ever since the date of purchase, plaintiff's father and thereafter, plaintiff remained in continuous cultivating possession of the property. On the basis of reports of subordinate revenue officers, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kunkuri proceeded under Section 170-B of Land Revenue Code (for short 'the Code') and passed an order on 29/06/1982 directing return of property to defendants, in execution of which, Nayab Tahsildar, Duldula mutated revenue records in view of defendants 1, 2 and 3 and also delivered possession. This gave rise to cause of action to the plaintiff to file a suit. According to the plaintiff, as defendants 1, 2 and 3 all are aboriginal tribe, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kunkuri is not binding. As no written statement was filed by the defendants, they were proceeded ex-parte.

(3.) Learned Trial Court framed issue on the aspect of jurisdiction as to whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of the provisions contained in Section 257 of the Code, present being a matter covered under Section 170-B of the Code.