Mohan Lal and Others etc. Vs. Shankar Rao (dead) by LRs. & Others etc.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 1080 – 1085 of 1990
Petitioner: Mohan Lal and Others etc.
Respondent: Shankar Rao (dead) by LRs. & Others etc.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 1080 – 1085 of 1990
Judges: V.N. KHARE & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 28, 2001
Head Note:
LAND AND TENANCY
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959
Sections 185(1)(ii)(c), 189 with Kanoon Mal – Section 252 – Tenancy of agricultural land – Sub-tenancy – Inheritability – Section 252 of Kanoon Mal amended w.e.f. 31.1.1948 – No suit for possession brought within one year of the Act of 1959. Held that in absence of suit within one year, heirs became the Bhumiswami and High Court’s view was erroneous. Appeals allowed. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in this group of appeals, they are being disposed of by a common judg-ment.
2. It is not disputed that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein were the Maufidars of the agricultural land situated at village Jiral in the district of Neemuch in the erstwhile Gwalior State. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondents let out the said land to the defendant-appellants in the beginning of the year 1948. On 28.5.1948, the erstwhile State of Gwalior was merged with the State of Madhya Bharat. Thereafter, on 1.11.1956, the State of Madhya Bharat was merged with the State of Madhya Pradesh. The State Legislature of the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat passed an Act known as Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, Samvat 2008. The said Act came into force w.e.f. December 4, 1952. By the said Act, all Jagirs’ rights were abolished and stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The State of Madhya Pradesh enacted Reve-nue Code called Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and it came into force on 2.10.1959. In the year 1971, the plaintiffs brought a suit for recovery of possession of the agricultural land and mesne profit against the defendants. It is necessary to clarify that in Civil Appeal Nos. 1081, 1082, 1083, 1084 and 1085 of 1990, the suits were filed against the sub-tenant and in other Civil Appeals suits were filed against the heirs of the sub-tenant. The Civil Judge, Class-I, Neemuch, by a judgment dated 6.11.1973, dismissed the suits. The appeals preferred against the said judgment were dismissed by the learned District Judge. However, second appeals filed by the plaintiff-respondent were allowed by the High Court and the suits filed against the defend-ant-appellant were decreed. The High Court while allowing the appeals was of the view that under Section 252 of the Kanoon Mal, as it was enforced then in the erstwhile State of Gwalior the sub-tenancy right was not inheritable. It is against the said judgment the appellants have preferred these appeals.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants raised two argu-ments. The first argument is that Section 252 of Kanoon Mal was amended w.e.f. January 31, 1948 and amended Section 252 of Kanoon Mal provided that sub-tenancy right was inheritable and, there-fore, the view taken by the High Court is patently erroneous. The second argument is that in any event of the matter, by enforce-ment of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the appellants acquired occupancy right under Section 185(1)(ii)(c) of the Act and the plaintiffs having taken no action for recovery of posses-sion under Section 189 of the Code, the appellants acquired Bhumiswami rights. We find substance in the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellants.
4. So far as the first argument is concerned, we have looked into the amended and un-amended provisions of Kanoon Mal, as it was applicable in the erstwhile State of Gwalior. It is true that un-amended Section 252 of Kanoon Mal provided that sub-tenancy right was not inheritable. However, w.e.f. January 31, 1948, Section 252 of Kanoon Mal was amended and the amended Section provided that sub-tenancy right shall be inheritable by the heirs of the sub-tenant. It appears, the High Court has not taken notice of the amended provisions of Section 252 and allowed the appeal on the basis of un-amended provision of the said Section. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in view of amended Section 252, these appeals deserve to be allowed. So far as the second argu-ment is concerned, it is not disputed that a pucca tenant under Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act acquired status of occupan-cy rights under Section 185(1)(ii)(c) of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs did not bring any suit for recovery of possession within one year from the date of enforcement of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code as contemplated under Section 189 of the said Code, and as such the Bhumiswami right in respect of the land in dispute accrued to the defendant-appellants w.e.f. 2.10.1961.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the view taken by the High Court in allowing the appeals of the respondent was erroneous. Consequently, the judgment under appeal is set aside. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in this group of appeals, they are being disposed of by a common judg-ment.
2. It is not disputed that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents herein were the Maufidars of the agricultural land situated at village Jiral in the district of Neemuch in the erstwhile Gwalior State. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-respondents let out the said land to the defendant-appellants in the beginning of the year 1948. On 28.5.1948, the erstwhile State of Gwalior was merged with the State of Madhya Bharat. Thereafter, on 1.11.1956, the State of Madhya Bharat was merged with the State of Madhya Pradesh. The State Legislature of the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat passed an Act known as Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, Samvat 2008. The said Act came into force w.e.f. December 4, 1952. By the said Act, all Jagirs’ rights were abolished and stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The State of Madhya Pradesh enacted Reve-nue Code called Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and it came into force on 2.10.1959. In the year 1971, the plaintiffs brought a suit for recovery of possession of the agricultural land and mesne profit against the defendants. It is necessary to clarify that in Civil Appeal Nos. 1081, 1082, 1083, 1084 and 1085 of 1990, the suits were filed against the sub-tenant and in other Civil Appeals suits were filed against the heirs of the sub-tenant. The Civil Judge, Class-I, Neemuch, by a judgment dated 6.11.1973, dismissed the suits. The appeals preferred against the said judgment were dismissed by the learned District Judge. However, second appeals filed by the plaintiff-respondent were allowed by the High Court and the suits filed against the defend-ant-appellant were decreed. The High Court while allowing the appeals was of the view that under Section 252 of the Kanoon Mal, as it was enforced then in the erstwhile State of Gwalior the sub-tenancy right was not inheritable. It is against the said judgment the appellants have preferred these appeals.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants raised two argu-ments. The first argument is that Section 252 of Kanoon Mal was amended w.e.f. January 31, 1948 and amended Section 252 of Kanoon Mal provided that sub-tenancy right was inheritable and, there-fore, the view taken by the High Court is patently erroneous. The second argument is that in any event of the matter, by enforce-ment of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the appellants acquired occupancy right under Section 185(1)(ii)(c) of the Act and the plaintiffs having taken no action for recovery of posses-sion under Section 189 of the Code, the appellants acquired Bhumiswami rights. We find substance in the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellants.
4. So far as the first argument is concerned, we have looked into the amended and un-amended provisions of Kanoon Mal, as it was applicable in the erstwhile State of Gwalior. It is true that un-amended Section 252 of Kanoon Mal provided that sub-tenancy right was not inheritable. However, w.e.f. January 31, 1948, Section 252 of Kanoon Mal was amended and the amended Section provided that sub-tenancy right shall be inheritable by the heirs of the sub-tenant. It appears, the High Court has not taken notice of the amended provisions of Section 252 and allowed the appeal on the basis of un-amended provision of the said Section. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in view of amended Section 252, these appeals deserve to be allowed. So far as the second argu-ment is concerned, it is not disputed that a pucca tenant under Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act acquired status of occupan-cy rights under Section 185(1)(ii)(c) of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs did not bring any suit for recovery of possession within one year from the date of enforcement of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code as contemplated under Section 189 of the said Code, and as such the Bhumiswami right in respect of the land in dispute accrued to the defendant-appellants w.e.f. 2.10.1961.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the view taken by the High Court in allowing the appeals of the respondent was erroneous. Consequently, the judgment under appeal is set aside. The appeals are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
