( 1. ) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal from the Judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge, in Second Appeal No. 194 of 1964. That second appeal arose from a suit instituted by Jainarayan (whose legal representatives are the appellants) against Ramsingh and Umraosingh (respondents nos. 1 and 2) and Babusingh (whose legal representatives are the other respondents) alleging that by an agreement of sale in the month of Baisakh samvat 2006 (corresponding to 1948 A. D.), he had agreed to sell the suit land to the defendants for a sum of Rs. 9595/ -. The defendants paid him rs. 4595 /- as part of the price and he gave them possession. However, under the law then in force, sale of land could be validly effected only with previous sanction of the Suba (Collector ). The parties applied for the requisite sanction but by an order dated October 6, 1953, sanction was refused. The plaintiff claimed return of possession from the defendants. He expressed his readiness and willingness to return the part-price received by him.

( 2. ) THE suit was resisted by the defendants inter alia on the ground that entire consideration had been paid to the plaintiff.

( 3. ) THE trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for possession of the suit lands on the condition that he returns Rs. 4595/- to the defendants within a specified period.

( 4. ) THE defendants appealed. The learned District Judge held that by virtue of section 20 of the M. P. Land Revenue and Tenancy Ordinance read with section 22 (1) of that Ordinance (which provisions corresponded to sections 58 and 78 respectively of the M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950, which repealed that ordinance) exclusive jurisdiction lay with the revenue Authorities and a civil suit was barred by section 47 (1) of the ordinance (corresponding to section 147 of the Act ). In the result, he dismissed the suit as not competent in the civil Court. The plaintiff preferred second appeal which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge upholding the conclusion reached by the lower appeal Court.

( 5. ) THE relevant provisions are these :-S. 70. (1)-Subject to the rules made under this Act, a Pakka tenant may with the previous sanction of the Suba transfer his rights in the whole or part of the holding by sale to a registered co-operative farming society of the same village in which the land is situated or to a bona fide agriculturist. (2) to (7 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . (not relevant) (8) No sale under this section shall be deemed to be valid until the sale deed effect in such a sale has been registered in accordance with the law of registration in force for the time being. Section 78 (1) any person who in contravention of the provisions of this Act, obtains possession of any land by virtue of a bequest, gift, sale, mortgage or sub-lease, shall be deemed to be a trespasser and shall be liable to ejectment in accordance with the provisions of section 58. (2) On the dispossession of the trespasser under sub-section (1) the pakka tenant, or if he is dead his legal heir shall under orders of the tahsildar be placed in possession of the land on payment of arrears, if any. (3) If a Pakka tenant or his legal heir as the case may be, refuses or fails to cultivate the land as required under sub section (2), the land shall be deemed to have been abandoned. Section 58. Any person who occupies land without lawful authority, shall be regarded as a trespasser and may be dispossessed by the Tehsildar at any time but he shall be liable to pay, as penalty for each year during the whole or part of which he has been in such occupation, a sum equal to twice the revenue or rent which would have been assessed if the land would have been allowed to any other person. The Tahsildar may impose a fine, in addition, not exceeding Rs. 50 in any case.

( 6. ) IT is contended by Shri Chaphekar, learned counsel for the appellants that the remedy provided in section 58 (corresponding to section 20 of the Ordinance) was not th