JUDGMENT 1. This appeal by the defendants' is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.3.2004 passed in Civil Appeal No.11-A/2003 by IInd Additional District Judge, Mungawali District Guna affirming the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2002 passed in Civil Suit No.3-A/2000 by Civil Judge, ClassI, Chanderi District Guna under section 100 of CPC whereby plaintiffs' suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed. 2. Plaintiffs' have filed the suit inter alia contending that an agricultural land area 2.487 hectare falling in Survey No.16/3 situated in village Barai, Tahsil Chanderi, District Guna was purchased by them from private defendants' vide registered sale-deed dated 10.10.1979. The Sub Divisional Officer in revenue Case No.46 “A”23/8384 vide order dated 29.6.1985 has cancelled the aforesaid sale deed on the premises that defendants' No.1 to 4 belonging to Rawat – Shariya and in the absence of permission from the competent authority, i.e., Collector as required under section 165(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') by exercising the powers under section 170B of the Code, the sale was declared to be null and void. It has been averred that as a matter of fact, the private defendants' are of Rawat caste and, the same is not included in the notification of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe issued by State and, therefore, the provisions of section 165 are not applicable in the instant case. According to plaintiffs', the sale-deed dated 10.10.1979 is not hit by the provisions of section 165(6) and 170B of the Code and, therefore, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is bad in law. 3. Defendants No.1 to 4 have filed written-statement and denied the plaint allegations. It is averred that the plaintiffs' taking advantage of their caste “Sahariya” which is Aadiwasi tribe in the Tahsil of Chanderi got executed the sale deed fradulently and mutated their names as regards suit land. On these premises, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. Trial Court based upon the aforesaid pleadings had framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court on critical analysis of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record as well as after consideration of the pleadings has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs'. 5. Defendants' No.5 and 6/State has not filed any written-statement. 6. 4. Trial Court based upon the aforesaid pleadings had framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Trial Court on critical analysis of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record as well as after consideration of the pleadings has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs'. 5. Defendants' No.5 and 6/State has not filed any written-statement. 6. On appeal by the private defendants', the first appellate Court has again reappreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record. The moot question was as to whether the defendants'/appellants' at the time of execution of sale deed dated 10.10.1979 belonged to scheduled tribe as specified in the notification of State to attract the provisions of sections 165(6) and 170B of the Code. It has been found that defendants' admitted that they belong to “Rawat” caste whereas “Rawat” caste itself was not specified but 'Sahariya' was included as Scheduled Tribe in the notification issued by State at the relevant point of time and, therefore, on the date of execution of sale deed, i.e., on 10.10.1979 as the “Rawat” caste was not included in the notification, the sale could not be said to be bad in law. Therefore, the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (supra) was bad in law. It is further found that in the Gazette notification dated 15.10.1999 published by the Madhya Pradesh State (PartI page 1061) No.One211Sat-Sashan898 dated 20.9.1999, the caste “Sahariya Rawat” has been included. As such, for the first time in the year 1999, the caste of “Sahariya Rawat” has been included as Scheduled Tribe. In view of the aforesaid, first appellate Court has held that the sale deed dated 10.10.1979 is not hit by provisions of sections 169(6) and 170B of the Code. Accordingly, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal. In the opinion of this Court, both the Courts below are justified in recording the concurrent finding of fact. 7. The contention of defendants'/appellants' that in the alternate instant suit is barred as provided under section 257 of the Code has also been considered. This issue has been dealt with in the light of judgment by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, reported in 1960 JLJ 105 , Nichaldas v. Askaran. 7. The contention of defendants'/appellants' that in the alternate instant suit is barred as provided under section 257 of the Code has also been considered. This issue has been dealt with in the light of judgment by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, reported in 1960 JLJ 105 , Nichaldas v. Askaran. It has been found that the suit was maintainable as the plaintiffs'/respondents' have assailed that the order of the SubDivisional Officer was wholly without jurisdiction as the order cancelling the sale-deed was contrary to the provisions of the Code as undisputedly, “Rawat” caste as Scheduled Tribe was not there in the notification issued by State at the relevant point of time and, therefore, the said authority wrongly assumed the jurisdiction to cancel the sale-deed dated 10.10.1979 purportedly under the provisions of section 165 read with section 170B of the Code. 8. Having perused the concurrent impugned judgments rendered by the Courts below and the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the Courts below have justifiably recorded comprehensive concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record which are impregnable in nature. The entire gamut of matter is in realm of facts. Under such circumstances, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises warranting interference under section 100 of the Code. 9. The appeal sans merit and is dismissed accordingly.