KASHIRAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter the CPC for short) filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 26-7-86, passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Ho-shangabad in Civil Appeal No. 53-A/81 arising out of judgment and decree dated 1-5-81, passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Sohagpur in Civil Suit No. 40-A/80.

(2.) THE appellant filed a suit for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent No. 1 from interfering with his possession of the land. It was also claimed that the order passed by the competent authority and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sohagpur in Revenue Case No. 735/ A/90 B (3) 74-75 Under Section 11 of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter the Act for short) be declared void. The appellant claimed that he was holding Khasra No. of 80,8. 87 acres of land situate in village Dhadhiyakishore, Tahsil Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad from respondent No. 3 Aman Singh on lease as a 'shikmi Kashtkar' from the year 1966-67. Therefore, he became an occupancy tenant of the suit land and thereafter under the provision of Section 190a of the M. P. Land Revenue Code (hereinafter the Code for short), 1959 a Bhumiswami prior to 1-1-71. He has also paid the compensation for the land in question to respondent No. 3 by executing a sale deed in favour of the respondent No. 3 and paying him compensation of Rs. 7,000/ -. The date of execution of the sale deed was 6-4-72. It was further alleged that the respondent No. 1 through competent authority under the Act started proceedings for declaration of land belonging to respondent No. 3 as surplus. The respondent No. 2 in Revenue Case No. 735/ A/90b (3) 74-75 declared the land in suit as surplus belonging to respondent No. 3 and a final order was passed. He further rejected the objection of the appellant Under Section 11 (4) of the Act. Thereupon the appellant brought this suit against the order dated 31-8-70 under Section 11 (5) of the Act after giving notice Under Section 80 of the C. P. C. The suit was filed on 29-11-77 within three months of the date of order rejecting objection of the appellant Under Section 11 (4) of the Act.

(3.) THE respondent No. 3 admitted the case of the appellant. However, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 contested the case of the appellant denying the allegations made in the plaint. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 claimed that the real owner of the suit land was the respondent No. 3 and not the appellant. They claimed that the sale deed was executed for defeating the provisions of the Act. They also claimed that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in this matter as per Section 46 of the Act.