GUDA Vs. RAMCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal preferred by the defendants/appellants herein was admitted for hearing by formulating the following substantial question of law: -

(2.) The suit property was originally held by Manglu and Hagru - fathers of defendants No.1 and 2, respectively. They sold the suit property in favour of the father of the plaintiffs - Ghanshyam by registered sale deed dated 1-5-1958 vide Ex.P-1. Later-on, at the instance of the defendants, proceeding under Section 170-B of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, 'the Code') was initiated and ultimately, by order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 9-12-1996 vide Ex.D-1, the sale was declared void in exercise of power under Section 170-B of the Code. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed suit on 12-9-2006 stating inter alia that they are title holders and possession holders of the suit land and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 9-12-1996 is without jurisdiction as the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 came into force on 2-10-1959, whereas the transaction is of 1-5-1958, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer could not have declared the transaction void in exercise of power under Section 170-B of the Code and therefore decree of declaration of title and permanent injunction be granted in their favour.

(3.) Resisting the suit, the defendants filed written statement stating inter alia that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer has not been challenged in the civil suit and no declaration has been sought seeking setting aside of the said order, therefore, the order of the SDO has become final and the revenue court has exclusive jurisdiction of the matter and jurisdiction of the civil court is barred in view of Section 257(l-1) of the Code, as such, the suit deserves to be dismissed.