( 1. ) THIS second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises out of judgment and decree dated 28-6-2003 passed by learned Additional district Judge, Kannod, District Dewas in Regular Civil Appeal No. 22-A/2000. By the judgment impugned, judgment and decree vide dated 22-3-2000 passed by the learned Civil judge, Class-I. Kannod in Civil Suit No. 144-A/95 has been confirmed whereby declaration in favour of the plaintiffs (respondent No. 1 through L. Rs. and respondent Nos. 2 and 3) has been made that they are the bhumiswami of the disputed land; order of the Sub Divisional Officer under section 170-B of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 ("code" hereafter) is in operative and the other side has been restrained from making an interference in the possession of the plaintiffs/respondents.

( 2. ) IT has been concurrently found by Courts below that the aboriginal tribe Bhumiswami Ramprasad sold his disputed land on 1-6-1958 to one Dhanya and also delivered to him its possession and executed registered sale-deed latter on 22-4-1965. Then Dhanya sold it to Dhannu (deceased plaintiff No. 1) and gave him possession and executed its registered sale-deed on 7-5-1977. Sub divisional Officer (Revenue) declared that the sale by Ramprasad to Dhanya was contrary to the provisions of Section 165 (6) and under Section 170-B of the code. The disputed land was liable to reversion to legal representative of ramprasad (defendant No. 1 Hariprasad ). Kachru (defendant No. 2) is son of late Dhanya. Hence, in the circumstances the suit for declaration and injunction against the above defendants and State was filed and in the alternative refund of consideration was claimed. ( 3. ) THE defence of the contesting defendants before the learned Trial court was that Ramprasad never executed the sale- deed of the suit land. He only had intended a mortgage. It was also pleaded that the jurisdiction of the civil Courts was barred to consider the issue of application of Sections 165 and 170 of the Code.

( 4. ) THE learned Trial Court at the conclusion of the trial found the suit of the plaintiffs proved and thus negatived the defences of the defendants. The matter went up in first appeal, however, without any success. Hence, this second appeal which has been admitted vide order dated 5-1-2005 for hearing parties on the following substantial questions of law:-

" (i) Whether Lower Appellate Court was justified in confirming the decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing plaintiffs suit ? (ii) In view of an admitted fact that issue involved in the suit was subject matter of Section 170-B of the M. P. Land Revenue Code proceedings and which resulted in favour of defendants (appellants), whether Trial Court was justified in entertaining the suit and granting decree in favour of the plaintiff ? (iii) Whether jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred by virtue of section 25 (1-1) because admittedly the issue involved in the suit was subject matter of 170-B proceedings and Competent Court, i. e. , sdo and later in appeal Collector decided the issue in favour of the defendant ?"

( 5. ) IN the circumstances of the case the substantial questions, as enumerated at Nos. (ii) and (iii), are to be examined to reach up to a conclusion relating to substantial question No. (i ). So far as the substantial questions No. (ii)and (iii) are concerned, they are interconnected in the circumstances and, therefore, they are being taken up together. It is pertinent to mention here that in support of the appeal the learned Counsel for the appellant argued that by a number of decisions of this Court it has been settled that in cases of agreement of sale by member of aboriginal tribe to one not such a member without permission of Collector is void and in such an eventuality Section 53-A of the transfer of Property Act and Section 65 of the Contract Act are not attracted. He referred to 1974 MPLJ 761; 1975 JUT 715; 1996 RN 175 (SC); 2001 RN 85 (MP); 1977 RN 75 (MP); 2002 R