LAWS(CHH)-2014-3-37

MANDHARI Vs. JUGO

Decided On March 11, 2014
MANDHARI Appellant
V/S
Jugo Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs' second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the CPC) against the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2002 passed by IInd Additional District Judge- Surajpur, Surguja, passed in Civil Appeal No. 5-A/2002, affirming the judgment and decree dated 03.08.1999 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Surajpur, Surguja (C.G.) passed in Civil Suit No. 10-A/1986 dismissing the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiff No. 1-Mandhari and plaintiff No. 2-Chhatradhari jointly filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction stating inter-alia that the Collector; surguja granted permission to the defendants No. 3 & 4 under Section 165(6) of the Land Revenue Code to sale the land, and pursuant to such permission, sale deed was executed on 04.10.1966 in their favour and in pursuant to said sale, they came in the possession of the suit land. The Revenue Case No. 1A-23/79-80 under section 170-B of the Code was registered and jurisdictional Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 30.03.1984 declared the said transaction as null and void exercising the power under Section 170-B of the Land Revenue Code. The plaintiff further challenged the order passed before the higher appellate and revisional authority as the order of Sub-Divisional Officer was confirmed by the Collector by order dated 15.02.1985 and also by the Commissioner, Bilaspur by order dated 09.08.1985 and the Board of Revenue, Gwalior by its order dated 05.06.1986 dismissed the revision filed by plaintiffs.

(2.) The trial Court vide the judgment dated 19.08.2002 dismissed the suit holding inter-alia that the order passed by the revenue authorities are in accordance with law and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction under Section 257(L-1) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 to entertain the instant suit

(3.) On appeal filed by the plaintiffs, the first appellate Court concurred with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.