BABU GOVIND BHILALA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF/appellant has filed this second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree passed on 10-4-97 in Regular Civil Appeal no. 5a/96 by the First Additional District Judge, Barwani (West Nimar), affirming the judgment and decree passed on 20-2-96 in Civil Suit No. 13-A/95 by Civil judge Class-II Anjad, W. N. This Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :-"whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the courts below erred in law in holding that the Civil Court jurisdiction is barred under Section 257 of the M. P. Land Revenue code?"

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant purchased agricultural land at village Chhapri bearing Survey No. 318 admeasuring 8. 27 acre from one umariya Bhilala, by registered sale-deed on 25-4-73. It is submitted that the appellant is 'adivasi' belonging to aboriginal tribe and the seller Umariya Bhilala was also of the same tribe. Thereafter on 12-5-95, a case under Section 170-B of the M. P. Land Revenue Code was registered against the appellant as well as one nabia S/o Ganpat who is in possession as a benami. It was stated in the notice that the aforesaid transaction of purchase of land by the appellant on 25-4-73 is nothing but a fraud and is covered under the provision of Section 170-B and the original owner, who was the member of aboriginal tribe, is entitled for possession of such land. After receiving notice the plaintiff filed the suit on 12-6-95 praying for a relief seeking declaration that he is the Bhumiswami and respondent be restrained to dispossess him. Suit was contested, issues were framed, question of jurisdiction of Civil Court was also raised and Trial Court vide order dated 20-2-96 dismissed the suit simply on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Civil court under Section 257 of the Code is barred. Thereafter, the Lower Appellate court also upheld the aforesaid finding of the Trial Court in appeal and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, against which this Second Appeal has been filed which was admitted on the aforesaid substantial question of law.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It was seriously argued and objected by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are bad in law and the findings recorded by the Trial Court on the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court are also bad in law. It was argued that on the day when the suit was filed, i. e. , on 12-6-95, the Civil Court was having jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was not exclusively barred and both the Courts below have committed illegality in dismissing the suit as well as appeal.