JUDGMENT 1. The substantial questions of law involved and to be answered by this Court in this appeal are as under: "(1) Whether in view of the bar contained in Section 257 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code the suit in the present form was maintainable ? (2) Whether findings of both the Courts below that the order of the Tahsildar passed under Section 190 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code was without jurisdiction in view of the Section 168(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, is contrary to law on the basis of material available on record?" [For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred in the instant judgment as were referred in the suit.] 2. The imperative facts required to be noticed for adjudication of this appeal are as under: (2.1) The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and for declaration of order of Tahsildar dated 29-11-1996 as null and void stating inter alia that the suit lands plaintiffs are title and possession holder of the scheduled suit land Duly entered in the schedule I annexed with the plaint. It was further pleaded that with the plaintiffs defendant No.1 Ghudauram is cultivating Khasra No. 188/1 area 3.02 acres of the land out of land belonged to them out of 11.49 acres of the land and on 12-6-1996 the defendant No.1 made an application before the Tahsildar, Kondagaon an application under Sections 110, 169 and 190 of the Land Revenue Code (henceforth 'the LR Code') on the basis that and on the said application the Tahsildar by order dated 29-11-1996 declared that the defendant No.1 is an occupancy tenant and, therefore, he is entitled for Bhumiswami right on the said land under Sections 110, 169, 190 of the LR Code. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs father died in the year 1977 and sought for the relief of declaration of title and possession and declaration of order of Tahsildar as null and void. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs father died in the year 1977 and sought for the relief of declaration of title and possession and declaration of order of Tahsildar as null and void. (2.2) The defendant No.1 filed his written statement stating inter alia that the defendant No.1 is in possession of the scheduled suit land for last 22 years and has also perfected his title by adverse possession and further pleaded that the plaintiffs mother Ganga on 3-5-1984 sold the suit land in favour of plaintiff's son for cash consideration of Rs.4,000/- and has also executed a receipt on 3-5-1984 and thus prayed that the suit be dismissed. 3. The trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 30-1-1999 granted a decree that the order of Tahsildar, Kondagaon, District Bastar dated 29-11-1996 (Ex.P-7) is null and void and further directed to defendant No. 1 to hand over peaceful possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs. 4. Defendant No.1 challenged the judgment and decree granted by the trial Court in first appeal preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth 'the CPC') before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court resulting into filing of the instant appeal by defendant No. 1 under Section 100 of the CPC. 5. This is an appeal by defendant No. 1 under Section 100 of the CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 26-7-2001 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Civil Appeal No. 10-A/99 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 30-1-1999 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Kondagaon in Civil Suit No. 22-A/97. 6. Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Vikas Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant No. 1 would submit that both the Courts below have concurrently erred in entertaining the suit and granting the decree in favour of the plaintiff in view of specific bar created under Section 257(o) of the LR Code. Shri Bharat would further submit that the findings of the two Courts below holding the order of Tahsildar, Kondagaon, District Bastar dated 29-11-1996 (Ex.P-7) under Section 190 of the LR Code was without jurisdiction in view of Section 168(2) of the LR Code. 7. Shri Bharat would further submit that the findings of the two Courts below holding the order of Tahsildar, Kondagaon, District Bastar dated 29-11-1996 (Ex.P-7) under Section 190 of the LR Code was without jurisdiction in view of Section 168(2) of the LR Code. 7. Combating the submission made by Shri Prafull Bharat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant No.1, Smt. Savita Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction and declaring the order of the revenue authorities jurisdiction of the civil Court is not barred under Section 257(o) of the LR Code. She would further submit that the defendant No.1 was not the occupancy tenant on the date of making the application before the Tahsildar and, therefore, the civil suit for declaration of title was maintainable and the order of Tahsildar granted status of Bhumiswami right under the LR Code was absolutely without jurisdiction. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Both the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal are interconnected and, therefore, they are being decided collectively. 10. In order to understand the controversy and to answer the substantial questions of law, following relevant provisions of the LR Code are required to be considered in the instant case to ascertain whether the civil Court has jurisdiction: "111. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts.- The Civil Courts shall have jurisdiction to decide any dispute to which the State Government is not a party relating to any right which is recorded in the record-of-rights. 168. Leases-(1) Except in cases provided for in sub-section (2), no Bhumiswami shall lease any land comprised in his holding for more than one year during any consecutive period of the three years: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to the lease of any land – (i) Made by Bhumiswami who is a member of a registered Cooperative Fanning Society to such Society; (ii) Held by a Bhumiswami for non-agricultural purposes. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section – (a) "lease" means a transfer of a right to enjoy any land, made for a certain time, expressed or implied in consideration of a price paid or promised or of money or any other thing of value to be given periodically to the transferer by the transferee who accepts the transfer on such terms, (b) any arrangement whereby a person cultivates any land of a Bhumiswami with bullocks belong to or procured by such person (lessee) and on condition of his giving a specified-share of the produce of the land to the Bhumiswami shall be deemed to be a lease, (c) the grant of a right merely to cut grass or to graze cattle or to grow 'Singham' or to propagate or collect lac, pluck or collect tendu leaves shall not be deemed to be a lease of the land. (2) A Bhumiswami who is – (i) a widow; or (ii) an unmarried woman; or (iii) a married woman who has been deserted by her husband; or (iv) a minor; or (v) a person subject to physical or mental disability due to old age or otherwise; or (vi) a person detained or imprisoned under any process of law; or (vii) a person in the service of Armed Forces of the Union; or (viii) a public, charitable or religious institution; or (ix) a local authority or a Cooperative Society; may lease the whole or any part of his holding: Provided that where a holding is held jointly by more than one person the provisions of this sub-section shall not be applicable unless all such persons belong to anyone or more of the classes aforesaid: Provided further that any lease made in pursuance of this sub-section shall cease to be in force after one year of the determination of the disability by death or otherwise. (3) Omitted by M.P. 25 of 1964 (23-4-1964) (4) Where a lease is granted in pursuance of sub-section (2) the lessee shall hold the land on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between him and the Bhumiswami and may be ejected by an order of a 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. (5) Where on the coming into force of this Code any land is held on lease from a Bhumiswami who belongs to anyone or more of the classes mentioned in sub-section (2), such lease shall, on the coming into force of this Code, be deemed to be a lease granted in pursuance of sub-section (2). 169. Unauthorised-lease etc.-If a Bhumiswami – (i) leases out for any period any land comprised in his holding in contravention of section 168; or (ii) by an arrangement which is not a lease under sub-section (1) of section 168 allows any person to cultivate any land comprised in his holding otherwise than as his hired labour and under that arrangement such person is allowed to be in possession of such land for a period exceeding two years without being evicted in accordance with section 250; the rights of an occupancy tenant shall, - (a) in the case of (i) above, thereupon accrue to the lessee in such land; and (b) in the case of (ii) above, on the expiration of a period of two years from the date of possession, accrue to such person in that land: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a land comprised in the holding of a Bhumiswami belonging to a tribe which has been declared to be an aboriginal tribe under sub-section (6) of section 165 and which is leased out by him or in respect of which he has made an arrangement as aforesaid, as the case may be. 190. Conferral of Bhumiswami rights on occupancy tenants. - (1) Where a Bhumiswami whose land is held by an occupancy tenant belonging to any of the categories specified in, sub-section (1) of section 185 except in items (a) and (b) of clause (i) thereof fails to make, an application under sub-section (1) of section 189 within the period laid down therein, the rights of a Bhumiswami shall accrue to the occupancy tenant in respect of the land held by him from such Bhumiswami with effect from the commencement of the agricultural year next following the expiry of the aforesaid period. (2) Where an application is made by a Bhumiswami in accordance with the provision of sub-section (1) of section 189, the rights of a Bhumiswami shall accrue to the occupancy tenant in respect of the land remaining with him after resumption if any allowed to the Bhumiswami with effect from the commencement of the agricultural year next following the date on which the application is finally disposed of. (2-A) Where the land of a Bhumiswami is held by an occupancy tenant other than an occupancy tenant referred to in sub-section (1), the rights of a Bhumiswami shall accrue to the occupancy tenant in respect of such land – (a) in the case of occupancy tenants of the categories specified in items (a) and (b) of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 185, with effect from the commencement of the agricultural year next following the commencement of the Principal Act; (b) in any other case, with effect from the commencement of the agricultural year next following the date on which the rights of an occupancy tenant accrue to such tenant. (3) Where the rights of a Bhumiswami accrue to an occupancy tenant under sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (2-A) such occupancy tenant shall be liable to pay to his Bhumiswami compensation equal to fifteen times the land revenue payable in respect of the land in five equal annual instalments, each instalment being payable on the date on which the rent payable under section 188 for the corresponding year falls due, and if default is made in payment, it shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue: Provided that if from any cause the land revenue is suspended or remitted in whole or in part in any area in any year, the annual instalment of compensation payable by an occupancy tenant holding land in such area in respect of that year shall be suspended and shall become payable one year after the last of the remaining instalments. (4) Any occupancy tenant may at his option pay the entire amount of compensation in a lump sum and where an occupancy tenant exercise this option, he shall be entitled to a rebate at the rate of ten per cent. (4) Any occupancy tenant may at his option pay the entire amount of compensation in a lump sum and where an occupancy tenant exercise this option, he shall be entitled to a rebate at the rate of ten per cent. (5) The amount of compensation, whether paid in lump sum or in annual instalments, shall be deposited in such manner and form as may be prescribed by the occupancy tenant with the Tahsildar, for payment to the Bhumiswami. (6) Where the rights of a Bhumiswami in any land accrue to an occupancy tenant under this section, he shall be liable to pay the land revenue payable by the Bhumiswami in respect of such land with effect from the date of accrual of such rights. 257. Exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities.-Except as otherwise provided in this Code, or in any other enactment for the time being in force, no Civil Court shall entertain any suit instituted or application made to obtain a decision or order on any matter which the State Government, the Board, or any Revenue Officer is by this Code, empowered to determine, decide or dispose of, and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of this provision, no Civil Court shall exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters:- xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (o) claims by occupancy tenants for conferral of the rights of Bhumiswami under section 190;" 11. Section 185 of the LR Code deals with the definition of an occupancy tenant. It states as under: "185. Occupancy Tenants.-(1) Every person who at the coming into force of this Code holds- (i) in the Mahakoshal region- (a) any land, which before the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 (II of 1955), was malikmakbuza and of which such person had been recorded as an absolute occupancy tenant; or (b) any land as an occupancy tenant as defined in the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 (II of 1955); or (c) any land as an ordinary tenant as defined in the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 (II of 1955); or (ii) in the Madhya Bharat region- (a) any Inam land as a tenant, or as a sub-tenant or as an ordinary tenant; or Explanation.- The expression "Inam Land" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Madhya Bharat Muafi and Inam Tenants and Sub-Tenants Protection Act, 1954 (32 of 1954). (b) any land as ryotwari sub-lessee as defined in the Madhya Bharat Ryotwari Sub-Lessees Protection Act, 1955 (29 of 1955); or (c) any Jagir land as defined in the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1951 (28 of 1951), as a sub-tenant or as a tenant of a sub-tenant; or (d) any land of a proprietor as defined in the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 (13 of 1951), as a sub-tenant or as a tenant of a sub-tenant; (iii) in the Vindhya Pradesh Region any land as a sub-tenant of a pachpan paintalis tenant, pattedar tenant, grove holder or holder of a tank as defined in the Vindhya Pradesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1953 (III of 1955); or (iv) in the Bhopal region- (a) any land as a sub-tenant as defined in the Bhopal State Sub tenants Protection Act, 1952 (VII of 1953); or (b) any land as a shikmi from an occupant as defined in the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 (IV of 1932); or (v) in the Sironj region- (a) any land as a sub-tenant of a khatedar tenant or grove holder as defined in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (3 of 1955); or (b) any land as a sub-tenant or tenant of Khudkasht as defined in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (3 of 1955); shall be called an occupancy tenant and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon an occupancy tenant by or under this Code: (2) Where any land referred to in items (c) or (d) of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) is at the time of coming into force of this Code, in actual possession of a tenant of a sub-tenant, then such tenant and not the sub-tenant shall be deemed to be the occupancy tenant of such land. (3) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to a person who at the coming into force of this Code, holds the land from a Bhumiswami who belongs to anyone or more of the classes mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 168. (3) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to a person who at the coming into force of this Code, holds the land from a Bhumiswami who belongs to anyone or more of the classes mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 168. (4) Nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a sub-tenant of tenant of a sub-tenant belonging to any of the categories specified in items (c) and (d) of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) to acquire the rights of a pakka tenant in accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1951 (28 of 1951), or of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 (13 of 1951), as the case may be." 12. By Section 158, the LR Code enumerates those persons who shall be called Bhumiswamis. Section 185 of the LR Code categorised those persons who shall be regarded as occupancy tenants. On a reference to the provisions classified in Section 185 of the LR Code, it is clear that the, status of an occupancy tenant was intended to be conferred by operation of statute on these persons only who held land for agricultural purposes on 2-10-1959, in one or more of the capacities enumerated thereon. The view I am taking finds support from the various provisions placed in Sections 185 to 202 in Chapter No. XIV of the LR Code. A perusal of the classes of tenants enumerated in the different clauses of sub-section (1) of Section 185 of the LR Code shows that they are tenants of sub-tenants holding land for agricultural purposes only. Section 189 of the LR Code provides for resumption of Bhumiswami of land held by his occupancy tenant for his personal cultivation. Section 190 of the LR Code provides for conferral of Bhumiswami rights on occupancy tenants in case the land held by them had not been or could not be resumed by a Bhumiswami in the manner provided .by Section 189 of the LR Code. Section 191 of the LR Code provides for restoration of occupancy tenant, if the Bhumiswami in whose favour an order of presumption is passed under subsection (2) of Section 189 of the LR Code fails to cultivate such land personally during the agricultural years next following the date on which the order is passed. Section 191 of the LR Code provides for restoration of occupancy tenant, if the Bhumiswami in whose favour an order of presumption is passed under subsection (2) of Section 189 of the LR Code fails to cultivate such land personally during the agricultural years next following the date on which the order is passed. Section 193(1)(c) of the LR Code provides that the tenancy of an occupancy tenant in his holding shall be liable to termination by an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer on the ground that he has used such land for a purpose other than agriculture. Section 194 of the LR Code contains the provisions applicable to occupancy tenant whose tenancy is terminated and inter alia deals with right to the crops shown or ploughed on the land held by him. Thus, it is implicit from the aforesaid sections and other provisions placed in Chapter XIV of the LR Code that they are intended to apply only to cases of those sub-lessees, who held land on the date of coming into force of the Code. 13. Section 190 of the LR Code undoubtedly empowers the revenue authorities to convert the rights of Bhumiswami but it contemplates that these rights could only-been conferred on an occupancy tenant but whether a person claiming the right of Bhumiswami is a occupancy tenant is not within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Tribunal to determine under Section 190 of the LR Code. There is no provision in the Code which empowers any revenue officer to determine the status of occupancy tenant. That question, therefore, will be for the civil Court to decide and bar under Section 257(o) of the LR Code will not, therefore, come into operation restraining jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the suit for declaration of title. 14. In Rawala Vs. Dettia and others 1978 Revenue Nimaya 12, the Madhya Pradesh High Court clearly held that in identical fact situation a civil suit would be maintainable. Para 4 of the report reads thus: "4. The lower appellate Court felt that under section 257(o) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code the claims by an occupancy tenant for conferral of the rights of Bhumiswami fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Tribunal under section 190 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. Para 4 of the report reads thus: "4. The lower appellate Court felt that under section 257(o) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code the claims by an occupancy tenant for conferral of the rights of Bhumiswami fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Tribunal under section 190 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. Section 190 of the Code on doubt empowers the Revenue Tribunal to confer the rights of a Bhumiswami; but it contemplates that these rights could only be conferred on an occupancy tenant but whether a person claiming the rights of a Bhumiswami is an occupancy tenant or not, is not within the jurisdiction of Revenue tribunal to determine under section 190 of the Code. That question therefore will be for the Civil Court to decide and section 257(o) of the Code will therefore not come into operation restricting jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit for declaration of title." 15. Likewise, in Sanwal and others Vs. Laxmibai and others 1991 Revenue Nimaya 114, the M.P. High Court has again held that if the parties dispute the relationship of Bhumiswami and occupancy tenant, the decision as to such status by the revenue Court will not be conclusive and it cannot be said that civil Court has no jurisdiction to determine the question of status. 16. Likewise, in Onkar Vs. Sabalsingh 1978 MPLJ Note 47, in case of dispute of status of Bhumiswami and occupancy tenant, civil Court would have the jurisdiction to determine the status. Relevant part of the report reads thus: "(a) M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, Ss. 189 and 257 and Civil Procedure Code, S.9 - Jurisdiction - Section 189 applies in case of admitted position of parties as Bhumiswami and occupancy tenant - Parties disputing status - Civil Court will have jurisdiction to determine status. Though under section 189, M.P. Land Revenue Code, the Revenue Tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction to order resumption in favour of a Bhumiswami but where the question of the status of a person as a Bhumiswami is concerned, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not excluded. Similarly where the status of a person as being an occupancy tenant is disputed that question also can be tried in a Civil Court. Similarly where the status of a person as being an occupancy tenant is disputed that question also can be tried in a Civil Court. Language of section 189 indicates that the jurisdiction of Revenue Tribunals depends on the admitted position that applicant is a Bhumiswami and his land is held by an occupancy tenant and it is only when the relationship of Bhumiswami and occupancy tenant is admitted that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is excluded. Subjection matter of inquiry under section 189 is possession and not title. Where therefore question of status is disputed decision as to such status by the Revenue Court will not be conclusive and Revenue Courts cannot be contended to have exclusive jurisdiction. The language of section 189 does not indicate that the Revenue Authorities could also go into the question about status of the parties being Bhumiswami and occupancy tenant and it could not be said that civil Court has no jurisdiction to determine question of status. Once it is held by the civil Court that that applicant is a Bhumiswami and non-applicant an occupancy tenant the civil court will have no jurisdiction to further go into the question where there is an order passed by the Revenue Authority under section 189. 1966 MPLJ 325 (FB), AIR 1963 SC 115, Rel., AIR 1961 SC 115, AIR 1965 SC 1942 , AIR 1966 SC 1738 , AIR 1969 SC 78 , AIR 1977 SC 955 , 1966 MPLJ 335 , 1969 MPLJ 349 = AIR 1970 MP 79 and 1975 MPLJ 87 , Dist." 17. In Ayyub Khan Vs. Fundilal 1969 MPLJ 632 , a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while dealing with the power of a Tahsildar under Section 38(2) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 to determine the status of a Pacca Krishak has held that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to determine the status of the person claiming right of a Pacca Krishak under Section 38(2) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 as the Tahsildar had no power to make an inquiry as to person claiming the right of Pacca Krishak. 18. In Reshma Bai (Smt.) and others. Vs. 18. In Reshma Bai (Smt.) and others. Vs. Kanchansingh and others 1996 Revenue Nirnaya 144, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, considering Sections 257(o), 168 and 169 of the LR Code, has clearly held that an occupancy tenant may approach the revenue authority when there is no dispute about the status of occupancy tenant. Para 14 of the report reads thus: "14. It is thus, clear that an occupancy tenant may approach the Revenue Authority when there is no dispute about the status as occupancy tenant. In the case on hand, there existed serious dispute in regard to the status in terms of section 169 of the Code. In the instant case there is a finding that Bhumiswami had not leased out his land comprised in his holding in contravention of section 168 of the Code and that there was no arrangement for a period exceeding two years. There is a concurrent finding that the land was given on Adhbatai only for one year." 19. Thus, having ascertained the legal position and keeping in view the principles laid down therein, reverting back to the facts of the instant case, I find that the real dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 is whether defendant No. 1 had acquired the status of occupancy tenant in respect of the scheduled suit land. Section 190 of the LR Code deals with conferral of Bhumiswami right on occupancy tenant and operate only when who is admittedly an occupancy tenant. In the instant case, defendant No.1 was not admittedly an occupancy tenant but he made an application under Section 190 of the LR Code before the Tahsildar, Kondagaon, District Bastar for conferral of rights as a occupancy tenant. Thus, the plaintiffs in the instant case being denied that defendant No. 1 became occupancy tenant and as such a relief that order dated 29-11-1996 (Ex.P-7) passed by Tahsildar, Kondagaon, District Bastar holding defendant No.1 Ghudauram as occupancy tenant is without jurisdiction. 20. Thus, the plaintiffs in the instant case being denied that defendant No. 1 became occupancy tenant and as such a relief that order dated 29-11-1996 (Ex.P-7) passed by Tahsildar, Kondagaon, District Bastar holding defendant No.1 Ghudauram as occupancy tenant is without jurisdiction. 20. On the basis of aforesaid analysis of the authorities, it is vividly clear that where the status of a person as an occupancy tenant is in dispute, the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to determine the status as Section 189 of the LR Code applies in cases of admitted position of parties as Bhumiswami and occupancy tenant and a civil suit is not barred by virtue of Section 257(o) of the LR Code and thus, undoubtedly, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar, Kondagaon, District Bastar dated 29-11-1996 (Ex.P-7). 21. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, defendant No.1 is admittedly not an occupancy tenant and does not have Bhumiswami rights and the revenue Court had no jurisdiction to declare him as an occupancy tenant. Thus, the order dated 29-11-1996 (Ex.P-7) passed by the Tahsildar, Kondagaon, District Bastar is without jurisdiction and authority of law. 22. The aforesaid findings are findings of fact and the receipt (Ex.D-5 and D-6) is an unregistered sale-deed which is inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, defendant No. 1 has not acquired any right of an occupancy tenant. It is held that the civil suit, as framed and filed, is clearly maintainable and both the Courts below have rightly held that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 29-11-1996 (Ex.P-7) and as such the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below deserve to be affirmed. 23. Moreover, recently, in Vishwanath Agrawal, S/o Sitaram Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 288 , the Supreme Court held that the High Court should not disturb a concurrent finding of fact unless the finding recorded is perverse being based on no evidence. Paragraphs 36 and 37 of the report read thus: "36. In Major Singh Vs. 23. Moreover, recently, in Vishwanath Agrawal, S/o Sitaram Agrawal Vs. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 288 , the Supreme Court held that the High Court should not disturb a concurrent finding of fact unless the finding recorded is perverse being based on no evidence. Paragraphs 36 and 37 of the report read thus: "36. In Major Singh Vs. Rattan Singh (1997) 3 SCC 546 : AIR 1997 SC 1906 , it has been observed that when the courts below had rejected and disbelieved the evidence on unacceptable grounds, it is the duty of the High Court to consider whether the reasons given by the courts below are sustainable in law while hearing an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 37. In Vidhyadhan Vs. Manikrao (1999) 3 SCC 573 , it has been ruled that the High Court in a second appeal should not disturb the concurrent findings of fact unless it is shown that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse being based on no evidence or that on the evidence on record no reasonable person could have come to that conclusion. We may note here that solely because another view is possible on the basis of the evidence, the High Court would not be entitled to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This view of ours has been fortified by the decision of this Court in Abdul Raheem Vs. Karnataka Electricity Board (2007) 14 SCC 138 : AIR 2008 SC 956 ." 24. In view of the foregoing, I hereby affirm the concurrent findings I recorded by the two Courts below and the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 25. Consequently, the instant appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 26. A decree be drawn-up accordingly. Appeal Dismissed.