Special statutory possession remedy must be exhausted first, and initiating recovery proceedings stops adverse possession from running.

Section 91 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act required proof of pakka tenancy and dispossession otherwise than in due course of law, so the enquiry extended to title and was not a purely summary remedy like Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. A dispossessed pakka tenant had to first pursue the statutory remedy before the revenue authority; a civil suit for possession was not maintainable at the outset without doing so. Filing the Section 91 application also interrupted adverse possession for limitation purposes, so the possession claim was not barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings under Section 91 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 were summary in nature and analogous to proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. (ii) Whether a pakka tenant could institute a civil suit for recovery of possession without first resorting to the remedy under Section 91 of the Act, and whether filing such an application arrested adverse possession for limitation purposes.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings under Section 91 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950 were summary in nature and analogous to proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

Analysis: The remedy under Section 91 required the applicant to establish that he was a pakka tenant and that he had been dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law. The enquiry therefore went into title and was not confined to mere prior possession. A proceeding that requires adjudication of title cannot be treated as a purely summary remedy akin to Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The statutory scheme also differed from the later-referred revenue provision treated as pari materia, since the Act contained an integrated scheme with Sections 91, 92 and 93.

Conclusion: The proceedings under Section 91 were not summary in nature and were not analogous to Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

Issue (ii): Whether a pakka tenant could institute a civil suit for recovery of possession without first resorting to the remedy under Section 91 of the Act, and whether filing such an application arrested adverse possession for limitation purposes.

Analysis: Reading Sections 91 and 93 together, and in the light of Section 147 of the Act and the general rule in Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the statutory remedy before the Tehsildar was the first and necessary step. A regular civil suit for possession by a dispossessed pakka tenant was not maintainable at the outset without exhausting that remedy. On limitation, Article 65 of the Limitation Act governed possession suits based on title. Once proceedings for recovery of possession were initiated, the running of adverse possession against the claimant stood interrupted, because adverse possession does not continue to run after institution of proceedings seeking recovery of possession.

Conclusion: A civil suit without prior resort to Section 91 was not maintainable, but the filing of the Section 91 application interrupted adverse possession and the suit was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme afforded the claimant a compulsory preliminary remedy before the revenue authority, and the commencement of that remedy prevented the defendants from completing title by adverse possession. The High Court's dismissal of the suit was therefore unsustainable and the plaintiff's claim survived limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute creates an integrated possession-restoration mechanism and provides a further civil remedy only after that statutory process, the civil court's jurisdiction is impliedly excluded at the first instance, and initiation of recovery proceedings interrupts the running of adverse possession for limitation purposes.

---