Phattelal vs Nandlal

N.M. Golvalker, J.—This is a revision petition by the Plaintiff challenging the correctness of the order of the lower Court dated 5-1-1962 returning his plaint for presentation to the proper authority on the ground that the suit was excluded from the jurisdiction of civil Court u/s 250 read with Section 257(X) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (hereinafter called "the Code").

It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendant had conveyed the said fields to him by way of sale for valuable consideration and had also placed him in possession thereof. But later on he was dispossessed. The Plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration of his title as also for possession and mesne profits of certain fields from which he was being excluded by the Defendant. On objection being raised as to the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the suit the lower Court ordered return of the plaint as stated in the beginning.

In my opinion, the suit contemplated u/s 257(X) of the Code and excluded from the cognizance of the civil Court is a suit wherein the decision of a revenue authority u/s 250 of the Code is a subject-matter of enquiry. That is to say such decision once given is not liable to be examined as to its correctness or otherwise by a civil Court. A perusal together of the relevant wordings of Section 257 and Clause (X) would amply bear testimony to the view I have taken. The relevant words are these:

No civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction over any decision regarding reinstatement of a Bhumiswami improperly dispossessed u/s 250.

Thus, the jurisdiction of the civil Court is ousted only from over the decision u/s 250. I am also fortified in this view by the decision of Shrivastava J. of this Court in the case of Kittu Paramlal v. Jamnaprasad Ramratan, 1963 JLJ SN 127: 1962 RN 277.

That apart, a perusal of Section 250 of the Code would also show that the remedy provided therein is only an alternate remedy similar to one provided u/s 9 of the Specific Relief Act. Under that section a Bhumiswami. dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law or if any person unautho-risedly continues in possession of his land, may apply to the Tahsildar for restoration of his possession within two years from the date of dispossession or from the date the possession becomes unauthorised. Thus, it will be seen what the Tahsildar would enquire into is only a simple question either of dispossession or of unauthorised continuance of possession in the same way as is done u/s 9 of the Specific Relief Act The remedy u/s 250 of the Code, therefore, being an alternate one, jurisdiction of the civil Court could never be held to have been excluded by Section 257 of the Code. In this view also I hold that the lower Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the Plaintiff and that the order returning the plaint is manifestly wrong.

The result, therefore, is that I allow this revision petition, set aside the order of the lower Court and direct that it shall try the suit according to law. In the circumstances, however, I make no order for costs.