ORDER Arun Mishra, J. This appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 20-7-2001 passed by Additional District Judge, Gadarwar District Narsinghpur in Civil Appeal No. 17-A/1986 thereby setting aside judgment passed by trial Court decreeing the suit filed by the Plaintiff/Appellants. Original Plaintiff Ram Prasad instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge Class II Gadarwara for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to agricultural land comprised in survey No. 238/3 and 238/4 on the strength of sale deed dated 22-6-1989 executed by Hari Shankar in his favour. The Plaintiff was cultivating the land along with Shashikant Mishra so that Defendants do not take illegal possession. They were trying to take forcible possession, hence it became necessary to file the suit for declaration of title and permanent prohibitory injunction restraining Defendants from interfering in his possession. The Defendants No. 1 to 3 in their joint written statement contended that no out and out sale deed was executed, no consideration was paid under the sale deed, it was executed as a collateral security for the loan advanced by one Ratan Singh. The loan of Ratan Singh was adjusted towards the consideration. As a collateral security in order to secure the loan. Ratan Singh got sale-deed executed in favour of Plaintiff. The suit was filed at the instance of Ratan Singh as he wanted to usurp the valuable land belonging to the Defendants. Ratan Singh was a money lender and used to lend the money at an exorbitant rate of interest of 10% per month as the loan amount increased, sale deed was got executed without payment of any consideration. There was no legal necessity. Civil Court was not having jurisdiction as it was "kuchakra" of money lender in order to usurp the valuable land of the Defendants. The trial Court decreed the suit aggrieved thereby an appeal was preferred by the Defendants. The appeal has been allowed as per impugned judgment and decree. The Appellate Court has held that in view of the provision of M.P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ke Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapne Sambandlii Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (Act 3 of 1977). The question whether it was a prohibited transaction of loan could not have been decided by Civil Court in view of the provisions of Act 3 of 1977. The question whether it was a prohibited transaction of loan could not have been decided by Civil Court in view of the provisions of Act 3 of 1977. Thus setting aside the judgment and decree case has been remitted to the trial Court, the parties have to obtain the decision on the question from the SDO and thereafter the trial Court to proceed further with the suit in the light of decision. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court this Misc. Appeal has been preferred. The sole submission raised by Shri Pranay Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that Act 3 of 1977 was not attracted as the transaction of the original Plaintiff Ram Prasad was with Hari Shankar not with Ratan Singh as such it could not be said to be case of prohibited transaction of loan. Thus the question as to title was rightly gone into by the trial Court. It could not be said to Shri Avinash Jargar, learned Counsel appearing for Defendants/Respondents has submitted that it was clearly a prohibited tansaction of loan entered into at the instance of money lender Ratan Singh. No money was advanced to the Defendant Hari Shankar. In the sale deed it was mentioned that consideration stood paid before its execution, that also buttresses the stand of the Defendant that in fact no consideration was passed under the so called sale deed. It was clearly a collateral transaction for ensuring repayment of loan not an outright sale. Thus transaction is not outside the clutches of Act 3 of 1977 merely due to the fact that sale deed was executed in favour of Plaintiff Ram Prasad at the instance of Ratan Singh. Possession was that of Defendants, an effort was made by Shashikant Mishra to dispossess them. The question whether transaction in question was prohibited transaction of loan could not have been decided by the Civil Court in view of the provisions of the Act. Bar created u/s 14(4) for entertaining civil suit with respect to subject-matter to be investigated by the competent authority under the Act. He has placed reliance on decisions of this Court in Seth Ratilal Tribhuvandas Mirani v. Smt, Gangabai Gopiji Bishnoi and others, 2003 (3) MPLJ 197. Sardar Arjun Singh v. Gangaram 1982 MPWN 462 and Hiralal Thakurdas Chowkse v. Hatesingh Laxman Singh, 1984 MPLJ 32 . He has placed reliance on decisions of this Court in Seth Ratilal Tribhuvandas Mirani v. Smt, Gangabai Gopiji Bishnoi and others, 2003 (3) MPLJ 197. Sardar Arjun Singh v. Gangaram 1982 MPWN 462 and Hiralal Thakurdas Chowkse v. Hatesingh Laxman Singh, 1984 MPLJ 32 . The main question for consideration is whether the Civil Court could have decided that transaction in question was not prohibited transaction of loan. When scheme of Act 3 of 1977 is considered, prohibited transaction of loan is defined u/s 2(f) of the Act to mean that a transaction in which a lender of money advances loan to a holder of agricultural land against security of his interest in land in the modes prescribed therein. Section 2(f) is quoted below: (f) 'prohibited transaction of loan" means a transaction in which a lender of money advances loan to a holder of agricultural land against security of his interest in laud, whether at the time of advancing the loan or at any time thereafter during the currency of the loan in any of the following modes, namely: (i) agreement to sell land with or without delivery of possession; (ii) outright sale of land with or without delivery of possession accompanied by separate agreement to re-sell it; (iii) outright sale of land with or without delivery of possession with a distinct oral understanding that the sale shall not be acted upon if the loan is re-paid; (iv) outright sale of land with or without delivery of possession with a condition incorporated in the sale deed to re-sell it on re-payment of the loan; (v) transaction in any modes other than those specified in Clauses (i) to (iv) affecting interest in land including a fraudulent transaction or a transaction designed to defeat the provisions of any law regulating money lending or interest, for the time being in force and includes all those transactions in which a lender of money has after the appointed day but on or before the date of publication of this Act in the Gazette, obtained possession of land of the holder of agricultural land through Court or by force or otherwise or obtained a decree for such possession towards satisfaction of loan: The Act has the overriding effect over the other laws as provided in Section 3. Section 4 clearly provides that transactions of loan to he subject to protection and relief under this Act. Section 4 clearly provides that transactions of loan to he subject to protection and relief under this Act. Sections 5 and 6 deal with the application and enquiry to be made by SDO. Section 9 provides for finality of the order of Collector or SDO as the case may be. Collector is the Appellate Authority. As per Section 9 order shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court, tribunal or authority by way of an appeal or revision or in any original suit, application or execution proceedings. Section 12 carves out the prohibition for lender of money not to enter into prohibited transaction of loan. As per Section 12 notwithstanding' anything contained in any enactment for the time being in force, no lender of money shall, on and from the date of publication of this Act in the Gazette, enter into a prohibited transaction of loan with a holder of-agricultural land and in case such transaction is entered into that shall be absolutely null and void. Section 14 of the Act creates bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts. No Civil Court shall have any jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the SDO or the Collector. The question which has arisen in the instant case as per Defendants' pleading was clearly a question to be decided, dealt with or settled by the SDO and in case appeal is filed before the Collector the order of Collector is final, there is bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain and to decide the question which is required to be decided by the competent authority under Act 3 of 1977. There is bar created u/s 12 of the Act over lender of money not to enter into prohibited transaction of loan notwithstanding any other law for the time being in force and as per Section 3, the Act 3 of 1977 has the overriding effect on the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, the submission raised by Shri Pranay Verma that as sale deed is not in name of lender of money transaction is not within the purview of Act 3 of 1977, is liable to be rejected at threshold. In case it is prohibited transaction of loan as pointed out clearly by Defendants in the written statement, that it was an amount of loan of Ratan Singh, which had swelled, as a collateral security without payment of consideration, the sale deed was got executed by Ratan Singh in the name of Plaintiff. Thereafter in order to usurp the land he got the suit filed. As per Defendants sale deed was not to be acted upon Considering the prohibition on transaction of loan u/s 2(f) which may be entered into, in order to defeat the provision of the Act 3 of 1977, is clearly covered under protective umbrella of the Act. even if it is entered by the money lender in the name of some other person as per Section 2(f) such a transaction is void, scope of the Act 3 of 1977 cannot be narrowed down as submitted by Shri Pranay Verma so as to take care of those transaction entered into in the name of money lender. There may be several dubious modes adopted by unscrupulous money lender to grab the land. What in essence is prohibited under the Act 3 of 1977 that cannot be ignored, overlooked by Courts nor allowed to by-passed by money lender by adopting dubious modes or under guise of Benami transaction or any other law as Act 3 of 1977 has overriding effect as specifically provided u/s 3. As the question as to transaction is prohibited transaction or not has to be gone into by the competent authority SDO. I have discussed and mentioned the above aspects only with a view to find out whether judgment and decree rendered by the Court below is in accordance with law and answer is in an affirmative. These questions are to be decided by SDO not by the Civil Court, discussion made should not be taken to be a decision on those issues thus order of remand to obtain the decision of the SDO is in tune with the decision given by this Court way back in Seth Ratilal Tribhuwandas Mirami v. Smt. Gangabai Gopiji Bishnoi and Ors. (supra). Sardar Arjun Singh v. Gangaram (supra) and Hiralal Thakardas Chowkse v. Hatesingh Laxman Singh (supra). Thus. I find that there is no merit in this appeal, same is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred of this appeal. Appeal dismissed. (supra). Sardar Arjun Singh v. Gangaram (supra) and Hiralal Thakardas Chowkse v. Hatesingh Laxman Singh (supra). Thus. I find that there is no merit in this appeal, same is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred of this appeal. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed