NARENDRA Vs. SAHEBIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision is directed against the order dated 16/10/96 passed in Civil Suit No. 102-A/87 by the Trial Court. The brief facts are that the Plaintiff namely Bholaram (since deceased and represented through Legal Representatives - Respondent No. 1 to 9 herein) filed a Civil Suit for a declaration that the sale-deed dated 15/6/ 74, executed by him in favour of Defendant No. 1, be declared null and void and he be declared the owner of agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 488 area 8.78 acres. The plaint allegations are that the Plaintiff was a landless person and this sale-deed was executed by him for obtaining loan of Rs. 3000/- from Defendant No. 1 and in fact, it was orally agreed between them that the Plaintiff shall be entitled to get the aforesaid document cancelled by a subsequent deed on repayment of loan amount by him on certain conditions as its owner. In nutshell, the Plaintiff pleaded that, in fact, the said document was not a document of transfer of title but the same was a document executed for the security of loan.

(2.) THE Defendants filed an objection under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure saying that under the provisions of M.P. (C.G.) Samaj Ke Katnjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976, (Act No. 3 of 1977 hereinafter referred to as Act), the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit would be barred by Law and the plaint is liable to be rejected. This contention was overruled by the Trial Court vide order dated 13/10/1987 holding that the suit was filed for declaration of ownership and it would not be barred under the aforesaid provisions of Law.

(3.) THE submission of learned Counsel for the applicants is that as per the provisions of Section 14 of the aforesaid Act, there is bar of civil jurisdiction, therefore, in view of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint should be rejected. He takes me to the various provisions of the said Act. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents argues that the present is a simple suit for declaration of title, therefore, the provisions of the said Act are not attracted and the Trial Court has rightly held that the civil jurisdiction, is not barred and the impugned order has rightly been passed. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Court below. Section 5 of the aforesaid Act provides that a holder of agricultural land who is a party to any transaction of loan subsisting on the appointed day or entered into thereafter may apply to the Sub-Divisional Officer within such time, and in such form and manner as may be prescribed for protection and relief under this Act. Section 6 provides about the enquiry to be conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Section 7 provides for setting aside the sale and restoration of possession of land or affording other relief. THEre is also a provision of appeal vide Section 8 of the said Act. Section 9 deals with the finality of the orders subject to all above, and ultimately, Section 14 deals with the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. It has been provided under this Section that subject to provisions of Section 11, no Civil Court shall have any jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector.