Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The substantial questions of law formulated and to be answered in plaintiffs' second appeal are as under:-

"(i) Whether the suit was barred under Section 257 of the M.P. (C.G.) Land Revenue Code?

(ii) Whether the Courts below were justified in not passing decree for possession especially when the Trial Court has recorded finding vide issue No. 1 that a portion of 0.14 RA ¼vkjs½ of land bearing Khasra No. 527 was under encroachment of the defendants?"

(For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the Trial Court).

2. Sans unnecessary details, the facts, which are essential to be stated for the purpose of disposal of the present second appeal are as under:-

2.1. Plaintiffs, herein filed a suit for recovery of possession, permanent injunction and damages of the suit land bearing:

Khasra No. Area

527 0.24 vkjs (hectare)

525 0.12 vkjs (hectare)

522 0.27 vkjs (hectare)

situated at Village Likhama, Tehsil Nagri, District Raipur claiming to be Bhumiswami and in which, the defendants illegally dispossessed them/encroacher upon them.

2.2. The defendants filed their written statement opposing the aforesaid allegation and took the specific defence that they are title holder of land bearing Khasra Nos. 523, 51, 359, 362, 343, 382, 431, 437, 440, 442, total area 4.90 acres and further challenged the demarcation report slating that they were not duly noticed in the demarcation proceedings and, therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed.

2.3. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 29-11-2003, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs recording following findings that:-

(i) Present suit is barred by Section 257(x) of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (henceforth "the Code").

(ii) Though the defendants have encroacher upon plaintiffs land bearing Khasra No. 527, area 0.14 vkjs, but identity of encroached portion is not established.

2.4. On appeal being preferred by the plaintiffs under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "the CPC"), the First Appellate Court by its impugned judgment and decree dated 28-1-2006, affirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs.

3. Questioning the legal acceptability and sustainability of the impugned judgment and decree dated 28-1-2006 passed by Additional District Judge Dhamtari, District Dhamtari in Civil Appeal No. 142-A/2004, this instant second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of the CPC, in which, substantial questions of law have been formulated as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment.

4. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that the judgment and decree passed by two Courts below holding that the suit to be barred by Section 257(x) of the Code is perverse being contrary to well-settled law in that regard and finding with regard to identity of the land is perverse and judgment and decree of two Courts below are liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants would submit that concurrent finding recorded by two-Courts below is based on evidence available on record and instant second appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records of both the Courts below with utmost circumspection.

Answer to first substantial question of law:

7. In order to answer first substantial question of law, it would be profitable to quote Section 257(x) of the Code:-

"257. Exclusive jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities.--Except as otherwise provided in this Code, or in any other enactment for the time being in force, no Civil Court shall entertain any suit instituted or application made to obtain a decision or order on any matter, which the State Government, the Board, or any Revenue Officer is by this Code, empowered