1. This second appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2001 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Mahasamund in Civil Appeal No.25-A/98 affirming the judgment and decree dated 13.11.1992 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge Class-II, Mahasamund in C.S. No. 270-A/91, whereby the trial Court has decreed the suit for possession after demolition of structure, has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether judgments of both the courts below are without jurisdiction in view of bar contained in Section 257(x) of MP Land Revenue Code, 1 959?"

2. As per plaint allegations, original plaintiff Parmanand, father of present respondent, had filed a civil suit for possession after demolishing house, garden and well constructed over the suit land, which has been resisted by the present appellants on the ground that civil suit is barred in terms of Section 250(x) of the M.P./C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the then applicable, (for short 'the Code, 1959'). After providing opportunity of hearing, the trial Court decree the suit and same has been affirmed by lower appellate Court.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused both, the judgments and records of the Courts below.

4. Learned counsel for the, appellants vehemently argued that within two years of dispossession the respondent had filed the suit simplicitor for possession after dispossession of the appellants herein. Virtually, it was a suit for reinstatement of a Bhumiswami improperly dispossessed within two years of such dispossession, which is squarely covered by Section 250 of the Code, 1959 and as per Section 257(x) of the Code, 1959, the civil Court is not having jurisdiction inter alia it contains bar. He further submits that the suit was not based on title and no other relief has been claimed, therefore, the suit was not maintainable in terms of Section 250 read with Section 257(x) of the Code, 1959.

Reliance is placed in the matter of Nathu Vs. Dilbande Hussain & others AIR 1967 MP 14 (V 54 C 5) in which the Court has held. that in case of recovery of possession of land from which bhumiswami has been dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law, remedy of suit under Section 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 is not available to dispossessed Bhumiswami and only remedy to dispossessed bhumiswami is available under Section 250 of the Code, 1959.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that there is no substantial question of law or substance in this appeal for decision. The suit was not simplicitor for possession by dispossessed bhumiswami but it was for possession after demolition of house, garden, well and for such demolition the revenue Courts are not competent. Even the respondent has valued the claim for the purpose of possession, demolition and removal of obstructions and had paid the court fee accordingly. Specific claim for possession after removal of such obstructions i.e. demolition/removal of construction, has been prayed which does not fall within the ambit of Section 250, therefore, the bar under Section 250 read with Section 257(x) of the Code, 1959 has not been created in the present case and the civil Court is competent to decide such issue.

6. As per Section 250 of the Code, 1959, a bhumiswami improperly dispossessed may file application for reinstatement within two years from the date of such dispossession and in case the applicant is a tribal, then within five years. Section 257(x) of the Code, 1959 reads thus:-

"(x) any decision regarding reinstatement of a Bhumiswami improperly dispossessed under Section 250.

7. While dealing with the question of exclusion of jurisdiction under Section 257(x) of the Code, 1959 and Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, in the matter of Nathu AIR 1967 MP 14 (V 54 C 5) (supra) the Division Bench of the M.P. High Court has held that in case of recovery of possession of land from which a Bhumiswami has be