Short Note : 1. The plaintiff's case is that as per the batai chithi dated 12-7-1967, the defendant took on adhia batai the suit lands comprising of 22 Khasra Numbers, area 15 acres from the plaintiff No. 1 for the year 1967-68 only. Earlier the defendant had taken the suit lands. on adhia batai from Maganlal, husband of plaintiff No. 1 and father of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 from 1964-65 onwards. Maganlal was suffering from paralysis and he was disabled and he died on 24-7-67, On 28-6-1967 the defendant executed one relinquishment deed, Ex. P-1 after handing over possession of the suit lands and acknowledging that he has got no right or title in the suit lands. Since the defendant did not hand over possession of the suit lands after the expiry of the agricultural year 1967-68 and since he also did not pay the full amount of adhia batai the plaintiffs filed this suit for possession and recovery of Rs. 100/- towards the balance amount of adhia batai. The defendant in his written statement admitted that he took the suit lands on annual leases from Maganlal since the year 1964-65. The defendant admitted that Maganlal had paralytic attack but denied that he was disabled. The defendant also submitted that Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 were executed by him under undue influence as the plaintiffs threatened to take possession of the suit lands by force. As such, the defendant has acquired occupancy rights under section 169 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code of 1959 and he could not be evicted. He also dented that he has not paid the full adhia batai to the plaintiffs. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant had failed to prove that he has executed Exs. P-1 and P-2 under undue influence. On the other hand, evidence on record clearly shows that these two documents were executed by the defendant voluntarily and after settlement of the terms. The relinquishment deed, Ex. P-1, though unregistered, can be used for the collateral purpose, i.e., the admission of the defendant therein that Maganlal was disabled. The trial Court also negatived the contention of the defendant that he acquired occupancy rights over the suit lands. The relinquishment deed, Ex. P-1, though unregistered, can be used for the collateral purpose, i.e., the admission of the defendant therein that Maganlal was disabled. The trial Court also negatived the contention of the defendant that he acquired occupancy rights over the suit lands. In appeal, the defendant was permitted to amend his written statement to take the legal plea that it is only the Revenue Court under section 168 (4) of the Code which can evict the defendant and the Jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under section 257 (k) of the Code. The learned Additional District Judge concurred with the findings of the trial Court and overruled the objection of the defendant that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed by the plaintiffs. Held : There is no prohibition so far as the lease is granted by persons mentioned in sub-section (2). Since it has been found as of fact that Maganlal was suffering from paralysis and he was disabled since 1963-64 as has been proved by the statement of Govinddas Saraf (P.W.1) and by plaintiff Saraswatibai (P.W.3), the lease granted by Maganlal was not in contravention of section 168 (1) of the Code. Section 168 (4) of the Code mentions that where a lease is granted in pursuance of sub-section (2), the lessee can be ejected by an order of the Sub Divisional Officer on the application of the Bhumiswami on the ground of contravention of any material term or condition of the lease or on the lease ceasing to be in force. But since the defendant had handed over possession to Maganlal as recited in the relinquishment deed, Ex. P-1, there was no necessity for Maganlal to move the Sub-Divisional Officer under this sub-section. It is true that the relinquishment deed being unregistered is not admissible in evidence but it has been rightly used for the collateral purpose to find out the admission of the defendant that Maganlal was a disabled person and that the defendant had handed over possession of the suit lands. Under the circumstances, it has been rightly held that section 168 (4) of the Code has no application and the present suit is quite competent. Even if it is not correct, the defendant cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. He having challenged the document as invalid, he cannot take advantage under it. Appeal dismissed.