( 1. ) RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFFS had filed a civil suit No. 14-A/92 in the Court of Third Civil Judge Class I, Gwalior, for declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that their father late Anandi Prasad Shrivastava was owner and occupier of the Survey Nos. 1125, 1126, 1128, 1131 and 1132, situated at Morar. Out of the above survey numbers, in Survey Nos. 1128, 1131 and 1132 their father and defendant No. 3 (Saint Peters Church) had also equal share while Survey Nos. 1125 and 1126 were in exclusive ownership and possession of his father. Thus, Survey Nos. 1125 and 1126 arc referred as disputed land.

( 2. ) THE father of the plaintiffs died on 28-4-1982 and since then the plaintiffs are in possession as being his legal heirs and cultivating the suit land through one Gyasiram on the spot. On 12-12-1991 employees of Nagar Nigam and State Government tried to evect them which necessitated the filing of the suit.

( 3. ) DEFENDANT No. 3 is exclusively claiming the right and possession over Survey Nos. 1126 and 1128 while in written statement filed on behalf of State Government and Municipal Corporation the disputed land is claimed to be a Government land and in possession of the Municipal Corporation. The jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit was also challenged. However, it seems that the question of jurisdiction was not seriously contested before both the Courts below and the case has been decided on merits.

( 4. ) THE learned Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 7-4-1993 dismissed the suit as found not proved while in First Appeal No. 2-A/93 Eighth Additional Judge to District Judge, Gwalior by the impugned judgment reversed the judgment and finding of the Trial Court and decreed the suit. Against which this second appeal has been admitted on following substantial questions of law :-

" (1) Whether the suit was not maintainable in Civil Court ? (2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court is vitiated on account of misreading of evidence and putting the burden on wrong shoulders ?"

( 5. ) FOR the purpose of challenging the jurisdiction of Civil Court the learned counsel of the appellant has invited attention to the provisions envisaged under Section 57 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, which reads as follows :-

"57. State ownership in all lands.-- (1) All lands belong to the State Government and it is hereby declared that all such lands, including standing and flowing water, mines, quarries, minerals and forests reserved or not, and all rights in the sub-soil of any land are the property of the State Government: (Provided that nothing in this section shall, save as otherwise provided in this Code, be deemed to effect any rights of any person subsisting at the coming into force of this Code in any such property.) (2) Where a dispute arises between the State Government and any person in respect of any right under sub-section (1) such dispute shall be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer. (3) Any person aggrieved by any order passed under sub-section (2) may instituted a civil suit to contest the validity of the order within a period of one year from the date of such order. [ (3-a) (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) no Civil Court shall, in a civil suit instituted under sub-section (3) on or after 24th October, 1983, by order of temporary injunction disturb the person to whom possession is restored under Section 250 if such person furnishes a reliance surety to recompensate the aggrieved party against any loss in case the Civil Court grants a decree in favour of the aggrieved party: Provided that no surety shall be required to be furnished by a member of a tribe declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6) of Section 165; (b) Where a Civil Court by an order of temporary injunction disturbed the person referred to in clause

(a) on or after 24th October, 1983 but before the publication of Revenue Departments Notification No. 1-70-VI