On second appeal to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Shiv Dayal, J., of that Court, after admitting certain numberifications as evidence, came to the same companyclusion both on the question of title and on the question of jurisdiction.
Hence the present appeal by special leave.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 24, 1959 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Civil Second Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court as delivered by Subba Rao, J. This appeal by special leave raises mainly the question whether a civil companyrt had jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondents for the recovery of possession of the plaint schedule land and mesne profits The relevant facts may be briefly stated The respondents, claiming to be the khatedars of an extent of 57.07 acres of land in Mauza Bhanpur, Tahsil Huzur, Western District Bhopal, filed a suit against the appellant on the ground that the latter was in illegal possession thereof.
8 of 1957.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the result he dismissed the second appeal.
Sen, C. L. Sanghi and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondents.
He also pleaded that his title to the property was declared by the Tahsildar in an application for ejectment filed by him against the respondents under the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 Act No.
The appellant companytested the suit mainly on the ground that he was the khatedar of the said land and that he was in possession thereof in that capacity.
1039 of 1963.
On appeal, the Additional District Judge agreed with the findings arrived at by the trial companyrt.
He held that the suit was maintainable in a civil companyrt.
IV of 1932 , hereinafter called the Act, and that the said decision would be a bar to the maintainability of the suit in a civil companyrt.
N. Keswani and Urmilla Kapur, for the appellant.
