The central legal point established is that the jurisdiction for matters related to revenue record lies exclusively with the revenue authorities as per section 257 of the M.P.L.R. Code.

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. This Second Appeal has been filed at the instance of plaintiff No. 1-Bhagwandas against the judgment and decree passed by two Courts below dismissing the suit of plaintiffs for deletion of the names of defendant No. 1 and his late brother Bindua @ Bhichhua, Nadua as well as Late Mahadevi and Somvati from the revenue record. The State of M. P. was arrayed as proforma defendant.

2. The plaintiffs are Bhagwandas and Gopaldas. The respondent No. 3 Gopaldas is plaintiff No. 2 in the plaint.

3. According to the plaintiffs, they are the joint Bhumiswamis having equal share in the suit property. This has also been endorsed in the revenue record and they are also paying the land revenue. According to the plaintiffs, they are also possessing the suit property. Further it has been pleaded that in the revenue record the names of defendant No. 1-Shriram and his late brothers Bindua @ Bhichhua, Nadua and sisters Mst. Mahadevi and Somvati are recorded as occupancy tenant which is a wrong entry made in the revenue record, because they never cultivated the land in question nor paid any land revenue. Indeed, the plaintiffs are possessing the suit property as Bhumiswami.

4. According to plaint para 3 the occupancy tenants Bindua @ Bhichhua, Nadua, Mahadevi and Somvati have died 15, 17, 30 and 15 years ago respectively prior to the date of filing of the suit and defendant No. 1 is the sole heir of these dead persons, hence, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit with a prayer to delete the names of those persons who have been wrongly recorded as occupancy tenant in the revenue record.

5. The defendant No. 1 filed written statement and refuted the plaint averments. The State of Madhya Pradesh has been impleaded as formal defendant as it has been arrayed as defendant in terms of Order 1, Rule 3B, Civil Procedure Code (State amendment).

6. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, inter alia found the suit to be not maintainable and dismissed the suit on the ground of maintainability as well as on merits.

7. The plaintiffs filed First Appeal assailing the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. The learned First Appellate Court only on the ground of maintainability of the suit holding it to be not maintainable, dismissed the appeal without giving any finding on merits.

8. In this manner this Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant.

9. This Court on 7-5-2007 admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law :-

Whether the First Appellate Court has erred in holding that plaintiff suit for declaration of title in respect of the agricultural land is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 257 of the M.P.L.R. Code ?

10. The contention of Shri Chandil, learned counsel for the appellant is that, if the suit was not found to be maintainable, the learned trial Court was not justified to decide the case on merit and in that situation, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to return the plaint to the plaintiffs for proper presentation in the proper Court in terms of Order VII, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court Punjab National Bank vs. Sarman, 2003 (1) M.P.W.N. 39 and further placed reliance on two decisions of learned Single Judge Surajmal vs. Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, 1978 (1) M.P.W.N. 66 and Kundan Singh and another vs. M.P. State Sahakari Vipanan Sangh Ltd., Bhopal, 1978 (1) M.P. W.N. 487.

11. In this case none of the respondents are appearing although they have been served, except Shri P. N. Gupta, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 2/State, who is a proforma party.

Regarding Substantial Question of Law:

12. In the present case the plaintiffs have sought the following relief in their plaint:-

Nowhere in the plaint the plaintiffs are seeking declaration of their Bhumiswami right in the suit property. Th