1. This civil revision has been filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the order dated 25.4.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Chitrakoot, District Satna, in Civil Suit No.15-A/2015 wherein the application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC has been dismissed.

2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant/defendant No.1 is, the respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and injunction with the relief of possession of suit property in which the question regarding corrections in map and revenue records is involved. The jurisdiction of the civil Court under section 257 of M.P. Land Revenue Code is barred for such relief.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant.

4. Heard the parties. Perused the record.

5. Learned trial Court held that the question of title over the suit property involved in the suit, will be adjudicated on the basis of evidence. The jurisdiction of the Revenue Court is barred to adjudicate the question of title. Jurisdiction of civil Court is not barred. Therefore, the application under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC has been dismissed by the learned trial Court. This Court is in agreement with the aforesaid finding of the learned trial Court. For proper adjudication of the case where the mixed question of law and fact involved, whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled for a decree of his title, permanent injunction and possession, the same can be decided on the basis of evidence.

6. On the other hand, in case of Om Prakash and another v. Ashok Kumar [2013 RN 124=2013(1) MPLJ 681], it was held that :-

“the plaintiff, Bhumiswami of the agricultural land in question can bring a suit in the civil Court for declaration of his title for possession. Such suit is not barred under section 257 of the MP Land Revenue Code.”

7. In case of Ramgopal v. Chetu [1976 RN 146=1976 JLJ 278=1976 MPLJ 325 (FB)] , the Full Bench of this Court has categorically held at paragraph 10 that :-

“...............determination of the question of title is the province of the civil Court and unless there is any express provision to the contrary, exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil Court cannot be assumed or implied. Further it has been held that although a speedy remedy is provided under section 250 of the Code to a Bhumiswami but he is not bound to avail that remedy and it is open to him to take recourse to the summary remedy under section 250 or even without it straightway the plaintiff can bring a suit in the civil Court for declaration of his title and possession. Further it has been held in para 17 that even if there has been a decision under section 250 by a revenue Court, the party aggrieved may institute a civil suit to establish his title to the disputed land. Nowhere in this decision it has been held that simplicitor suit for possession is not maintainable if it has been filed on the basis of title.”

8. The Full Bench decision in case of Ramgopal (supra), has been affirmed and approved twice by the apex Court; firstly, in case of Rohini Prasad and others v. Kasturchand and another [2000 RN 141=(2000)3 SCC 668], and secondly, in case of Hukum Singh (dead) by LRs and others v. State of M.P. [(2005)10 SCC 124]. In these two decisions also, it was held that the jurisdiction of civil Court is not barred under section 257 of MP Land Revenue Code, 1959 in respect to question of title.

9. Similar view has been taken in case of Munda v. State of M.P. [2014 SCC Online MP 5968]; Satendra Kumar v. Radheshyam Vishwakarma [2015 SCC Online MP 3011] and Madho Singh and others v. Moni Singh (dead) by LRs and others [(2004) 12 SCC 214]. Even though, correction of entry in revenue record cannot be faulted with, as it is within the right of plaintiff and is within the jurisdiction of the civil Court in entertaining the suit for title which is not being provided under section 257 of the Code of 1959.

10. At this juncture, t