JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. This second appeal preferred under Section 100 of the CPC by the appellant herein/plaintiff was admitted for hearing on 1-2-2021 by formulating the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff holding that she was not competent to institute a suit against the order of the Competent Authority passed under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 by recording a finding perverse to the record?”

Thereafter, on 9-2-2021, following additional substantial question of law was framed and parties herein were noticed on the additional substantial question of law and they were heard also:-

“Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court by holding that the order of the Competent Authority dated 19.05.1976 (Ex-P-4) is in accordance with law by recording a finding perverse to the record?”

For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status shown and ranking given in the suit before the trial Court.

2. In a proceeding initiated under the M.P. (Chhattisgarh) Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Ceiling Act’) on 21-1-1976 in Revenue Case No. 2247-B/92 year 74-75 (State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Brinda Bai), the competent authority under the Act passed order on 19-5-1976 rejecting the objection of the plaintiff and vesting 9.54 acres of land in the Government in exercise of power conferred under sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Ceiling Act and further directed for issuance of final draft statement. The plaintiff/objector filed suit under Section 11(5) of the Ceiling Act on 18-8-1976 seeking that the order of the competent authority is illegal and bad in law and that be declared illegal and for declaration of her title. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was originally held by Jirau, his first wife was Jhehli Bai and second wife was Brinda Bai – original defendant No. 3. The plaintiff is daughter of Jirau out of his wedlock with first wife Jhehli Bai, whereas Brinda Bai is second wife of Jirau. It is the further case of the plaintiff that in partition, the suit land i.e. 9.54 acres fell in her share and her name has also been recorded in the revenue records and she along with defendant No. 3 has also alienated the suit house vide Ex.P-3 and her name has also been recorded in the revenue records, but the aforesaid fact has been ignored by the competent authority, as such, she is entitled for declaration of invalidation of the order of the competent authority.

3. Defendant No. 1 the then State of Madhya Pradesh, filed its written statement opposing the plaint allegations stating inter-alia that in order to circumvent the provisions of the Ceiling Act, the plea of partition has been setup which is a plea to come out of the clutches of the Ceiling Act, as such, the competent authority has rightly declared the suit land to be vested in the State Government and directed for publication of final draft statement. However, defendant No. 3 Brinda Bai supported the claim of the plaintiff.

4. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff is title holder and possession holder of 9.54 acres of land and restrained the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession.

5. Questioning the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh and the competent authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer preferred first appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and further held that the jurisdiction of civil court is barred and Hemin Bai had no right and title to file suit, as the holder of the property is