1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8.1.1991 passed by the learned Third Additional District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Appeal No. 26N88 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Second Civil Judge Class-II, Ujjain in Civil Suit No. 661-A/79 dismissing the suit has been reversed and set aside and the suit of plaintiffs has been decreed, the State of Madhya Pradesh has come up in this second appeal knocking the doors of this Court under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. Karansingh S/o Sardarsingh and Madansingh S/o Narayansingh were the plaintiffs. They filed a suit for declaration of Bhoomiswami right and injunction arraying State of Madhya Pradesh through Collector Ujjain, Murti Shri Ram Mandir Pujari Sitabai- Manager, Collector Ujjain and Ambaram as defendants. According to the plaint averments in village Mohanpura, there is a temple known as "Shri Ram Mandir" and this temple is the Bhoomiswami of the agricultural land the description whereof has been mentioned in para 1 of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, the Pujari of said temple is Smt. Sitabai widow of Ramchandra. For last two years from the date of filing of the suit (suit filed on 26.6.1979), all of a sudden the name of Collector, Ujjain has been endorsed as "Vyavsthapak" (Manager) in Column No.3 of the Khasra.

3. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the agricultural land was given by the temple through Pujari Sitabai (defendant No.2) to Sardarsingh and Narayansingh, whose sons are plaintiffs, for cultivation on the basis of relationship of Shikmi. It is also the case of the plaintiff that Narayansingh and Sardarsingh were paying land revenue to Pujari of the temple and were cultivating the land in question and after their death plaintiffs are cultivating the land as Shikmi.

4. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.2 Murti Shri Ram Mandir through Pujari Smt. Sitabai filed an application under section 248 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (here-in-after referred to as "the Code") and in those proceedings it was submitted by the plaintiffs that they are the lessee on the suit agricultural land and if their lease is to be terminated, it can be terminated in accordance with the procedure as contemplated under sub-section (4) of section 168 of the Code. Till the lease is determined, proceedings under section 248 of the Code cannot be commenced. According to plaintiffs Tahsildar dismissed the application of defendant No.2 and directed that till the lease is detem1ined, the plaintiffs cannot be said to be a trespasser and they cannot be evicted from the suit property under the purview of section 248 of the Code. It is pleaded by plaintiffs that the said decision of Tahsildar became final.

5. It has been further pleaded by the plaintiff's that without adopting the procedure as contemplated under section 168 (4) of the Code, again the proceedings under section 248 of the Code were initiated against the plaintiffs and in those proceedings Naib Tahsildar has passed an order against them on 2.8.1978 holding the plaintiffs to be trespassers and they were directed to be evicted. The said order of Naib Tahsildar is without jurisdiction, as a result of which each plaintiff filed separate appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer and those appeals were dismissed on 3.3.1979. Thereafter plaintiffs after giving notice under section 80 of CPC on 8.3.1979, which was served on Collector, Ujjain on 12.3.1979, filed the present civil suit.

6. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that defendant State of Madhya Pradesh through its Collector, Ujjain without jurisdiction gave the suit land to defendant No.3 on lease and who is now trying to take possession of the suit land of the plaintiffs.

7. In para 7 of the plaint, it has been pleaded that while dismissing the appeals of plaintiffs on 3.3.1979 by Sub-Divisional Officer it was held therein that the suit land was cultivated by the plaintiffs, th