P. K. TARE, C.J. : - On leave being granted by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Second Appeal No. 548 of 1970, dated 6-1-1971, this Letters Patent Appeal raises two questions of law. The first one is whether a transaction of transfer under Section 165 (6) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, is void or voidable ; and the second question is whether in view of the provision of Section 170 0) of the Code read with Section 257 (L) of the same, the heirs of the transferee can maintain a Civil suit on title and for possession in a Civil Court consequent on death of the transferor.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal are as follows : Mst. Meharinbai, mother of the respondents, who are members of an aboriginal tribe, namely, Panka, was a Bhumiswami in respect of Khasra Nos. 2, 99, 100/2 and 144/1, area 2.31 acres. On 16-3-1961 she sold the said Bhumiswami lands to the appellant for a consideration of Rupees 500/-. It was the respondents' contention that the real value of the lands was Rs. 1,500/-. Mst. Meharinbai died some time in October, 1965, and after her death the respondents, who are her sons and daughters, filed the present suit on the allegation that the said sale was not binding on them. The respondents claimed a declaration of their title and also possession of the suit lands.

3. On behalf of the defendant-appellant it was contended that the transaction of sale as per Section 165 (6) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, was not void, but only voidable and as the heirs did not avoid the transfer as provided by Section 170 (1) of the Code, they could not maintain a suit in the Civil Court by virtue of the bar provided by Section 257 (L) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. The appellant had also raised other pleas in reply to the plaintiffs allegation that the transaction was nominal and it was in lieu of a loan. However, all those questions stand decided in favour of the appellant except the two questions mentioned above.

4. The trial Judge, vide judgment, dated 31st October, 1966, in Civil Suit No. 34-A of 1966, dismissed the plaintiff-respondents' suit holding that the transaction of sate was not in lieu of any loan incurred by Mst. Meharinbai. It was also held that the sale-deed was not nominal. Further it was held that Mst. Meharinbai had transferred the possession to the transferee after the sale and that she did not make any repayment to the transferee. Lastly, it was held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and that the only remedy of the heirs was to obtain possession through the Revenue Court as provided by Section 170 (1) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, and as that remedy was not resorted to, the present suit was not maintainable.

5. On an appeal before the First Additional District Judge, Durg, the learned Judge in Civil Appeal No. 11-A of 1967, renumbered as Civil Appeal No. 8-A of 1968, dated 7-8-1970, reversed the decree of the trial Court holding that the bar of Section 257 (L) read with Section 170 (1) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, would not apply and that a civil suit based on title after the death of the transferor was maintainable. Therefore, the respondents claim for possession was decreed on the condition that they refunded the consideration of Rs. 500/-to the defendant. That decree of the first appellate Court was upheld by a learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the remedy provided in Section 170 (1) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, is a summary remedy, which will not bar a title suit and the remedy is available only to the heirs of the transferor and is not available to the transferor. The learned Single Judge also held that the transaction in contravention of Section 165 (6) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, would be void ab initio because of the provision of Section 165 (10) of the Code. In that view, the decree of the first appellate Court was affirmed by the Single Bench.

6. Before considering the two questions involved in the pres