SAROJNIBAI Vs. LAKKHURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The substantial question of law formulated and to be answered in plaintiff's second appeal states as under:--

(2.) Questioning the legal acceptability and sustainability of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellant Court, this instant second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the C.P.C.') has been preferred by the plaintiff, in which, substantial question of law has been formulated and recorded in opening paragraph of this judgment.

(3.) Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the decree of both the Courts below are apparently contrary to law and in excess of jurisdiction. The provisions under The Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (in short "the Adhiniyam, 1976") were squarely attracted. Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 1976 bars the jurisdiction of civil Court in respect of matter required to be determined by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the competent authority under the Adhiniyam, 1976. Hence, it would have been thus appropriate to stay the proceedings in suit and direct the defendant to approach the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 5 to obtain a decision in terms of Section 7 of the Adhiniyam, 1976 thereunder as held in Hiralal Thakurdas Chowkse Vs. Hatesingh Laxmansingh, 1984 MPLJ 32reiterated in Ramcharan Mansha Vs. Badri Prasad Kushwaha, 1991 MPLJ 721.