NARAYAN Vs. SDO AND COMPETENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal has been filed u/s 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree dated 16.3.1982 passed by Addl. District Judge Khargone in Civil Appeal No. 62A/1982 by which the learned Addl. District Judge has reversed the judgment and decree dated 19.8.1982 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Khargone in COS No. 40A/1976.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that a Return as required u/s 9 of the M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was filed by the father of the appellant (plaintiff) with regard to the land held by the family in which it was declared that appellant being a major son was entitled to hold land in accordance with sub-section (2) of Sec. 7 thereof in addition to the extent of land prescribed for the family by Sec. 7. In the draft statement prepared under sub-section (3) of Sec. 11 of the Act, the claim that the appellant was a major son on the appointed day was not accepted by the Competent Authority. The appellant, therefore, filed a suit under the provisions of sub-section (5) of Sec. 11 before the Civil Judge, Class II, Khargone for a declaration that he had attained majority as on 7.3.1974 and was entitled to hold 30 acres of land under the provisions of the Act. The claim was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the plaintiff was minor on the appointed day and was therefore, a member of the family as defined under section 2(gg) of the Act and, therefore, the family could hold land only to the extent prescribed by Sec. 7 of the Act. It was also pleaded that since the decision of the Competent Authority did not relate to the title of the plaintiff, suit was not maintainable under sub-section (5) of Sec. 11 and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred u/s 46 of the Act. The learned Addl. District Judge, inter alia, has held that the suit was barred as the decision of the Competent Authority under the Act did not relate to the dispute with regard to the title of the holder of the land and further, the plaintiff had failed to prove that he had attained majority as on the appointed day. The plaintiff has, therefore, preferred this appeal which has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

(3.) LEARNED DGA for the respondent has supported the judgment of the lower Appellate Court on the ground that since the decision of the competent authority is not as regards title of the appellant, the holder of the land, the order of the competent authority was not referable to sub-section (4) of Sec. 11 with the result the Civil Court had no jurisdiction under sub-section (5) of Sec. 11 in view of .the bar contained in Sec. 46 of the Act.