BABU KHAN AND ORS. versus NAZIM KHAN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1199 · Decided: 16-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BABU KHAN AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
NAZIM KHAN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
APRIL 16, 2001 
[V.N. KHARE AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
B 
Land Laws: 
Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950: 
Section 91-Proceedings under-Nature of-Tenant-Reinstatement of-
C 
Civil suit-Maintainability of-Pucca tenant filed application before Revenue 
authorities for his reinstatement as he was allegedly dispossessed-Application 
dismissed-Thereafter, such pucca tenant filed suit before civil courtfor decla-
ration and possession-Held: Proceedings under S. 91 are not surnmary in 
nature and akin to S. 6 of the Specific Relief Act-A pucca tenant who '""been 
dispossessed is first required to take recourse under S. 91-Hence, suit filed in 
D 
civil court without resoning to remedy under S. 91 not maintainable-Specific -
Relief Act, 1963, S. 6. 
Limitation Act, 1963 : Section 14, Anicle 65. 
Jf!nant-Reinstate1nent of-Limitation-Pucca tenant filed ci.vil suit for 
declaration and po:;session after reso11ing to re1nedy available under relevant 
Land & Tenancy Act-Adverse possession-An-esting of-Held: once a suit for 
recovery of possession is filed adverse possession is arrested-Hence, such a 
suit is not barred by limitalion. 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Pari Materia provisions-lnterp1-etation of-Principles-Held: {f two 
provisions of different statutes are pari materia, couns generdly follow the 
decision on similar provision of the other statute to avoid contradiction-But 
E 
F 
if the two statutes are not in pari materia the same principle does not hold good. 
G 
The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants-plaintiffs filed an appli-
cation under Section 91 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy 
Act, 1950 for this reinstatement as pucca tenant as he was allegedly dispos-
sessed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent-defendants. The 
Tehsildar allowed the application. But the Sub-divisional Officer reversed 
H 
1199 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1200 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
this decision. The Commissioner dismissed the second appeal filed by the 
appellants. The revision petition filed before the Board of Revenue was 
also dismissed. It was held by the Board of Revenue that the respondents 
were already in possession of the land and they had planted trees and also 
constructed two houses over the said land. 
Thereafter, the appellants brought a suit for declaration of title and 
delivery of possession against the respondents. The respondents contended 
that the suit brought by the appellants was barred by limitation. The trial 
court held that the time spent in prosecuting the case in the revenue court 
should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 while 
computing the period of limitation for the suit and came to the conclusion 
that the suit was filed within the period of limitation. Consequently, the 
suit was decreed. The first appellate court affirmed the decree of·lhe trlal 
curt. However, the High Court allowed the second appeal filed by· the 
respondents. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the remedy of filing 
the suit for recovery of possession of the land under Section 93 of the Act 
was available to a pucca tenant only after exhausting the remedy provided 
under Sections 91 and 92 of the Act and, therefore, the suit brought by the 
appellants was not barred by limitation; and that once an application 
under Section 91 of the Act was filed by the appellant before the Tehsildar, 
the adverse possession ceased to continue thereafter. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the remedy 
under Section 91 of the Act was summary in nature, akin to Section 6 of 
the Specific Relief Act, 1963; that it was always open to the appellant 
either to take recourse to the summary proceedings under Sections 91 and 
92 of the Act or to file a regular title suit in the civil court and also claim 
possession in the same suit and, therefore, the suit brought by the appellant 
was barred by limitation; and that Section 91 was in pari materia to Section 
250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and a Full Bench of the High Court 
while interpreting Section 250 of the Code had held that proceedings 
under Section 250 of the Code was summary in nature and, therefore, in 
view of the said decision the proceedings under Section 91 of the Act has to 
be held as summary in nature. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
~ 
i 
... 
BABU KHAN v. NAZIM KHAN 
1201 
HELD : 1.1. The 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.