RAMGOPAL KANHAIYALAL Vs. CHETU BATTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions referred to this Full Bench are whether the Civil Court cannot take cognizance of a suit instituted by Bhumiswami on the basis of his title, against a trespasser; and whether the decision in Nathu v. Dilbande Hussain, AIR 1967 Madh Pra 14, is no longer good law.

(2.) Chetu brought the suit against Ramgopal on the averment that he is the Bhumiswami of survey No. 138/3 (area 5 Bighas 9 Biswas) of village Kulhar, Tahsil Basoda. On or about July 15, 1963, the defendant wrongfully took possession of the suit land. The plaintiff used to earn about Rs. 150/- per year from the yield of the suit land. The defendant's case was that the plaintiff had entered into a contract with him to sell the suit land to him for Rs. 900/- He paid Rs. 900/- to the plaintiff and the plaintiff delivered possession to him. The plaintiff promised to execute a deed of sale in his favour but later on refused to do so. The learned Civil Judge, Class II, Basoda, rejected the defendant's plea and held that he wrongfully dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land. Accordingly, he passed a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. The defendant's appeal was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Vidisha.

(3.) The defendant preferred this second appeal. When it came up for hearing before a Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the suit was barred by the provisions contained in Clause (x) of Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called the Revenue Code). He relied on their Lordships' decision in Hatti v. Sunder Singh, AIR 1971 SC 2320 and urged that the view taken in Nathu v. Dilbande Hussain, AIR 1967 MP 14 = (1964 Jab LJ 707) is no longer good law.