NARMADA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law involved and to be answered in this appeal is as follows:

(2.) The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 24-2-1999 dismissed the suit finding inter alia that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 20-9-1965 vesting the scheduled suit Junitalab and attached Paithu in the State is not invalid and the mutation by order dated 11-8-1975 is also not invalid. The trial Court also found that the suit was barred by limitation.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth 'the Code, 1908'). The first appellate Court, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 26-11-1999, though has held that necessary inquiry has not been done by the Collector, Bilaspur and the affected parties have not been heard and the trial Court has erred in holding that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer vesting the scheduled suit Junitalab and attached Paithu in the State is valid, affirmed the finding of the trial Court that the suit was barred by limitation.