T.S. Doabia, J.

1. This appeal has come to be filed under the following circumstances:

A suit was filed by the present appellants. It was indicated that in survey number 135 there is a Mandir of Lord Hanumanji. It was also stated that there was a double storey building. The further plea taken was that in survey number 136, there are Muries (statutes of other dielies). It was further pleaded that in survey numbers 137. 138 and 139 there is a boundary wall and there are gates in existance. It is on this basis, an argument has been raised that the Courts below should have examined the matter under section 5 of the Madhya Bharat Zamin-dari Abolition Act. Samvat 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and not under any other statutory provision.

2. The revenue papers which were brought on the record of the case were for samvat 2002 to 2006, 2008 and 2010 to 2013. The relevant record does indicate the existance of a temple.

3. The argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellants was that the case should have been examined in terms of section 5 (1) (f) and 5 (b).

4. There appears to he some merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. A person in contin