Inconsistent jurisdictional objections cannot defeat a civil suit when earlier revenue proceedings were refused on title grounds.

A party cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate by taking inconsistent stands before different fora. After the revenue authorities declined jurisdiction under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 on the ground that title was in issue, the same defendants could not later contend that a civil suit was barred by Section 257. The Court held that accepting that objection would leave the plaintiff without any remedy, so the civil suit was not barred. The trial court was therefore right in refusing to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the order rejecting the plaint was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil suit was barred by Section 257 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 after the revenue authorities had already declined jurisdiction under Section 250 of that Code, and whether the defendants could take inconsistent stands to oppose the civil suit.

Analysis: The plaintiff had first approached the revenue authorities under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The defendants objected to the revenue forum's jurisdiction, and that objection was accepted on the ground that the dispute involved title. After the plaintiff then instituted a civil suit, the same defendants contended that the civil court was barred by Section 257. The Court held that a party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by taking two contradictory stands before different fora. Accepting the defendants' second objection would leave the plaintiff without any remedy, which could not be countenanced. In these circumstances, the trial court was right in refusing to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred, and the order rejecting the plaint was unsustainable. The plaintiff succeeded.

---