The civil court has jurisdiction to examine whether the provisions of the Land Revenue Act have been complied with and whether the statutory tribunal has acted in accordance with fundamental principles of judicial procedure, even if jurisdiction is excluded under Section 220 (1).

1. The appeal is by the defendant. The appeal arises out of a suit for setting aside the order of the Sub-divisional Officer, dated the 14th March 1941 and for joint possession to the extent of 0-8-0 of 'mouza' Chichgaon in Hatta zamindari of which the appellant is the zamindar.

2. The following genealogy will be helpful in understanding the case: (See genealogy on page 273)

3. According to the respondents, Mt. Bhugabai was the real sister of the father of the appellant. The village was presented by the zamindar to his daughter and her husband. The village was held on a sort of a perpetual lease. After the death of Bhugabai and Mohan 'patel' the village came to be recorded in the name of Chunnilal as representative of the joint family consisting of himself, Durga and their sons.

4. In the year 1897 three persons Chunnilal, Durga and Narayan (who is not shown in the genealogy) applied for being recorded as inferior proprietors of the village in suit. The prayer was not granted but one of the applicants, Durga, was recommended for being given the status of a protected 'thekedar.' The recommendation was accepted by the Chief Commissioner. Jagannath, the only son of Durga, was recorded as the protected 'thekedar' after the death of Durga. According to the respondents, Durga and Jagannath were recorded as protected 'thekedars' as representatives of the family of Mohan including the respondents. On the contrary, the appellant asserted that they were protected 'thekedars' in their individual capacity and that the respondents had no interest in the 'theka' or the lease.

5. In 1937, proceedings were started in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Balaghat, against Jagannath for forfeiture of the protected status conferred on him. According to the respondents, though the Deputy Commissioner moved the Commissioner for obtaining the previous sanction for forfeiture of the protected status previously conferred on Jagannath and got the necessary sanction, no order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner declaring that Jagannath 'patel' had forfeited the protected status conferred on him.

The appellant, however, treating the report for sanction, dated the 18th August 1938, as an order declaring the forfeiture applied for mutation of the -/16/- of 'mauza' Chichgaon. The Sub-divisional Officer sanctioned the mutation and ordered that the appellant should be placed in possession of the village under Section 49 (3) of the Land Revenue Act (vide Exhibit D-3). The appellant was accordingly placed by a warrant in possession on the 27th November 1940 ('vide' Exhibit D-4). Being aggrieved by the delivery of possession the respondents applied under Section 31 (2) of the Land Revenue Act for re-delivery of the possession. The Sub-divisional Officer, however, rejected the application by the order dated the 14th March, 1941 ('vide' Exhibit P-1.)

6. The respondents instituted the suit for setting aside the order of the Sub-divisional Officer and for joint possession on the ground that there was no forfeiture under Section 111 of the C. P. Land Revenue Act, and that in any case even if there be an order of forfeiture it had no effect on the rights of the respondents who were not made parties to the proceedings.

7. The appellant denied that the respondents had an eight-anna interest in the village. According to the appellant, the respondents had no interest whatsoever and the claim was barred by limitation as the respondents had not made their claim within 12 years after Durga became the protected 'thekedar' in 1920. The appellant also pleaded Section 220 (1) of the Land Revenue Act as a bar to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit.

8. The learned trial Judge decreed the claim for Joint possession. He held against the appellant on the pleas of jurisdiction and limitation raised by him. Further it was held that the village had been leased to Bhugabai and her husband in perpetuity. According to the trial Judge, the respondents were co-sharers in the 't