JUDGMENT Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The substantial question of law formulated and to be answered in plaintiff's second appeal states as under:- "Whether in view of the defence put-forth by the defendant, the trial Court ought to have relegated the defendant to approach the Court constituted under the provisions of M.P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharkon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, (No. 3 of 1977)?" [For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status shown in the suit before the trial Court]. The imperative facts required to be noticed for determination of this second appeal are as under:-- 2.1 The Plaintiff-Sarojnibai commenced an action stating inter alia that by a registered sale deed dated 20/01/1984 (Exhibit P-3) defendant-Lakhuram sold Khasra No. 596, area 0.426 hectare, Mouja Tarenga, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Raipur for Rs. 6,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in possession. Soon thereafter, the plaintiffs name was mutated in revenue record. The mutation order was set aside in appeal and case was remanded for decision afresh. Since the defendant was attempting to interfere with plaintiff's possession; on or about 30/6/1981, an action claiming declaration of title and permanent injunction was instituted. The alternative relief of possession was also claimed. The defence was that the sale deed (Exhibit P-3) was a nominal to secure repayment of loan raised by the defendant. 2.2 By judgment and decree dated 07/03/1989, the trial Court dismissed the suit finding inter alia that the sale deed dated 20/01/1984 (Exhibit P-3) was executed for repayment of loan raised by the defendant. 2.3 The first Appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 02/02/1998 affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court holding that payment of Rs. 6,000/- was not proved. 2. Questioning the legal acceptability and sustainability of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellant Court, this instant second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the C.P.C.') has been preferred by the plaintiff, in which, substantial question of law has been formulated and recorded in opening paragraph of this judgment. 3. Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the decree of both the Courts below are apparently contrary to law and in excess of jurisdiction. 3. Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the decree of both the Courts below are apparently contrary to law and in excess of jurisdiction. The provisions under The Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (in short "the Adhiniyam, 1976") were squarely attracted. Section 14 of the Adhiniyam, 1976 bars the jurisdiction of civil Court in respect of matter required to be determined by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the competent authority under the Adhiniyam, 1976. Hence, it would have been thus appropriate to stay the proceedings in suit and direct the defendant to approach the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 5 to obtain a decision in terms of Section 7 of the Adhiniyam, 1976 thereunder as held in Hiralal Thakurdas Chowkse vs. Hatesingh Laxmansingh, 1984 MPLJ 32 reiterated in Ramcharan Mansha vs. Badri Prasad Kushwaha, 1991 MPLJ 721 . 4. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent/defendant, even after service of notice. 5. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff and have also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. In order to have the proper comprehension of the attack made to the decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court, it would be necessary to find out as to whether the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 are attracted to the facts of the present case or not? 7. In case of Hiralal Thakurdas Chowkse, (supra), the Madhya Pradesh High Court held in Paragraph-9 as under:-- "9. The conclusion I have reached is that when an application or suit is filed before the civil court and from the allegations made therein it appears that the claim made arises out of a prohibited transaction of loan, allegations in the application or suit that the claim does not arise out of any prohibited transaction of loan, it shall be entertained by the civil court which shall proceed to deal with it. If during the course of proceedings before the civil court, such questions arise which are to be settled, decided or dealt with by Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector under the Adhiniyam, the court shall stay the further proceedings in suit and direct the parties so raising the questions to obtain a decision from the Sub-Divisional Officer in terms of Sections 6 and 7 and on receipt of decision by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector, as the case may be, shall proceed to decide the suit in accordance with such decision." 8. The Adhiniyam, 1976 defines a holder of agricultural land, lender of money and prohibited transaction of loan, which runs thus:-- 2(c). 'holder of agricultural land' in the weaker sections of the people means a holder of land used for purposes of agriculture not exceeding eight hectares of unirrigated land or four hectares of irrigated land within the State whether as a Bhumiswami or an occupancy tenant or a Government lessee either in any one or all of the capacities together within the meaning of the Code. Explanation.--One hectare of irrigated land shall be equal to two hectares of unirrigated land and vice versa. Explanation.--One hectare of irrigated land shall be equal to two hectares of unirrigated land and vice versa. 2(d) 'lender of money' mean a person advancing loan to a holder of agricultural land, whether registered under the Madhya Pradesh Money Lenders Act, 1934 (No. 13 of 1934) or not:." 2(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 land, 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 repayment 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 to wards satisfaction of loan; (f) words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Code or the Transfer of Property Act, 1982 (No. IV of 1982) shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in the Code or that Act, as the case may be. 9. In order to appreciate the point in question, it would be appropriate to refer Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11 & 14, of the Adhiniyam 1976 which runs thus:-- "Section 3. 9. In order to appreciate the point in question, it would be appropriate to refer Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11 & 14, of the Adhiniyam 1976 which runs thus:-- "Section 3. Act to override other laws -- The provisions of this Act and any rules made thereunder shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law or any custom, usage or agreement or decree or order of a Court or other authority. Section 4. All prohibited transactions of loan to be subject to protection and relief under this Act -- It is hereby declared that all claims in relation to a prohibited transaction of loan subsisting on the appointed day or entered into thereafter but on or before the date of publication of this Act in the Gazette shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other enactment for the time being in force or any decree or order, if any, of any Court or authority be subject to protection and relief in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Section 5. Application for protection and seeking relief under this Act -- A holder of agricultural land who is a party to any transaction of loan subsisting on the appointed day or entered into thereafter may apply to the Sub-Divisional Officer within such time, and in such form and manner as may be prescribed for protection and relief under this Act. Section 6. Enquiry by Sub-Divisional Officer -- (1) The Sub-Divisional Officer may, on his own motion in any transaction of loan and shall, on receipt of an application under Section 5 in the transaction of loan referred to therein, make preliminary enquiry as he may in the circumstances of the case deem fit, to ascertain whether the transaction of loan is a prohibited transaction of loan and on being satisfied that Section 4 applies to such transaction, he shall, after recording his opinion therefore, proceed to conduct an enquiry into such transaction in the manner hereinafter provided. (2) The Sub-Divisional Officer shall by a notice served on the parties to the prohibited transaction of loan call upon them to place all relevant facts and documents before him at such place, on such date and at such time as may be specified in the notice. (2) The Sub-Divisional Officer shall by a notice served on the parties to the prohibited transaction of loan call upon them to place all relevant facts and documents before him at such place, on such date and at such time as may be specified in the notice. (3) The Sub-Divisional Officer shall at the place and on the date and time specified in the notice, afford an opportunity to the parties of being heard in person and may, if necessary, examine all of the parties interested in land to elucidate information relevant to the transaction of loan. (4) During the enquiry the Sub-Divisional Officer shall, for the purpose of ascertaining the true nature of transaction of loan, try to collect, as far as may be, information with respect to the following facts, namely:-- (i) the amount of principal money; (ii) the market value of the land at the time of the transaction; (iii) adequacy of the amount of principal money as consideration for sale in the context of then market value under clause (ii); (iv) whether the consideration shown in the document was paid in whole or in part privately or before the Sub-Registrar; (v) whether possession of the land was actually delivered to the lender of money as, per recitals in the said document. If not, when and in what manner the lender of money obtained possession of the land; (vi) what were the terms of the actual agreement between the lender of money and the holder of agricultural land including the rate of interest; (vii) the extent of urgency for the loan and the availability of other sources to the holder of agricultural land to obtain the same; (viii) payment, if any; made by the holder of agricultural land to the lender of money towards the loan; (ix) whether the lender of money is registered money lender or not; (x) any other surrounding circumstances which the Sub-Divisional Officer may deem fit to consider. Section 9. Finality of order--Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act every order made by the Collector in appeal or of a Sub-Divisional Officer, shall, if no appeal is filed, 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 11. Section 11. Pending proceedings to be decided in accordance with this Act -- Any proceeding pending in a Court of law in relation to land which can be a subject matter of enquiry by the Sub-Divisional Officer under this Act shall, on the publication of this Act in the Gazette, be decided by the Court in accordance with the provisions of this Act, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law for the time being in force. Section 14. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts -- Subject to provisions of Section 11, 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 Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector." 10. A close reading of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 14 of the Adhiniyam, 1976 would show that Section 3 of the Adhiniyam, 1976 creates an overriding effect of its provisions over any other law for the time being in force. Section 4 provides that a holder of agricultural land shall be entitled to relief and protection under the Adhiniyam, 1976 in respect of prohibited transactions of loan subsisting on the appointed day or entered into thereafter but on or before the date of publication of the Adhiniyam, 1976 in the Gazette. A holder of agricultural land intending to seek relief and protection under the Adhiniyam, 1976 to any transaction of loan has to apply to the Sub-Divisional Officer seeking such protection or relief. The Adhiniyam, 1976 then proceeds to provide a procedure to be followed by any holder of agricultural land desirous of seeking protection in respect of prohibited transaction of loan subsisting on the appointed date, which is 1-1-1971 as per clause (a) of section 2 of the Adhiniyam, 1976. If no proceedings are pending in any Court of law in relation to such transactions, Section 5 provides that an application should be made by the holder of agricultural land before the Sub-Divisional Officer. On receipt of such application, the Sub-Divisional Officer has to make an enquiry as provided in section 6and may grant any of the relief in accordance with section 7. Section 6 contemplates an enquiry by the Sub-Divisional Officer on an application presented before him under section 5 by any holder of agricultural land. Section 7 speaks of the reliefs. On receipt of such application, the Sub-Divisional Officer has to make an enquiry as provided in section 6and may grant any of the relief in accordance with section 7. Section 6 contemplates an enquiry by the Sub-Divisional Officer on an application presented before him under section 5 by any holder of agricultural land. Section 7 speaks of the reliefs. This section includes a proviso which carves out an exception to the effect that nothing contained therein shall prejudice the right of lender of money to enforce his right to recover the loan advanced by him to the holder of agricultural land under such transaction by due process of law within a period of three months from the date of final declaration of prohibited transaction of loan void notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1963. Any order passed under Section 7 is made appealable under Section 8 before the Collector and section 9 attaches finality to the order passed, by the Collector in appeal or by the Sub-Divisional Officer if no appeal is filed. If, however, proceedings in respect of such transactions are pending in any Court, the provisions of section 11 are attracted and after the publication of the Adhiniyam, 1976 in the Gazette, that Court shall decide the dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1976 notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law for the time being in force. Section 12 then enacts that 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 the Adhiniyam, 1976 in the Gazette, enter into any prohibited transaction of loan with a holder of agricultural land and any such prohibited transaction of loan shall be absolutely null and void and no Court shall entertain any application or suit to enforce any claim of lender of money arising out of prohibited transaction of loan. Then comes section 14 creating bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts and is an follows: "14. Bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts. -- Subject to the provisions of section 11, 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 Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector." 11. Bar of jurisdiction of civil Courts. -- Subject to the provisions of section 11, 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 Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector." 11. In the aforesaid scheme of the Adhiniyam, 1976, if averment made in the plaint and written statement are examined, the plaintiff has simply stated that he had purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 20/01/1984 (Exhibit P-3) from the defendant-Lakhuram and came in possession. Likewise, the defendant in his written statement has pleaded that it was a loan transaction of the parties. 12. A bare perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it would appear that it has not been pleaded and established that the defendant was holder of agricultural land within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Adhiniyam, 1976 and the plaintiff's husband Govind Soni was money lender within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Adhiniyam, 1976 and impugned transaction was a prohibited transaction of the sale within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Adhiniyam, 1976 as to attract the applicability of the Adhiniyam, 1976. 13. In case of Lallo Singh vs. State of M.P. & Others, 1982 JLJ 586 , the Madhya Pradesh High Court held in Paragraph-6 as under:-- "6. Section 4 of the Adhiniyam says that all prohibited transactions of loan to be subject to protection and relief under this Act, So, to get jurisdiction under this Act, the main point to be seen is whether the applicant was holder of an agricultural land. Secondly, whether the person who has advanced the money in covered by the definition of lender of money and lastly, whether the transaction is a prohibited transaction of loan. It these things are satisfied, then the Sub-Divisional Officer gets jurisdictions to entertain the complaint of the petitioner filed under the Adhiniyam. The Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the Collector both have elaborately discussed who filed the complaint is a holder of the land. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition or complaint cannot be accepted." 14. The Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the Collector both have elaborately discussed who filed the complaint is a holder of the land. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition or complaint cannot be accepted." 14. Thus, in the light of aforesaid legal position, reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is clearly established that plaintiff has failed to prove that the loan transaction entered into, between the parties is prohibited transaction of the loan within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Adhiniyam, 1976 and in absence of proper pleadings and evidence, both the Courts below are absolutely justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. It is held that it was not necessary for the two Courts below to stay the suit proceeding to relegate the defendant to approach the Authority constituted under the Adhiniyam, 1976. Resultantly, the second appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff fails and is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs.