1. The only substantial question of law raised before the High Court was whether the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was barred on account of Section 257(v) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. It has been held by the High Court on the basis of the text and precedent that a suit to challenge the scheme of consolidation of holdings was barred, but not one of possession and injunction claimed on the basis of the title between two parties. It has been taken that a civil court certainly has jurisdiction to determine a question of title to land without causing any dent to the consolidation scheme. We have gone through the provision in question and the reasoning of the High Court. It seems to us that the view taken by it is unexceptionable. Instantly was a suit between two contenders to the title of the land, not in any way affecting the scheme of consolidation. On this premise we dismiss the appeal, affirming the judgment and order of the High Court. No costs.