MOHAN LAL Vs. SHANKAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of facts and law are involved in this group of appeals, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(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 Revenue 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 defendant-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 arguments. 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, therefore, the view taken by the High Court is patently erroneous. The second argument is that in any event of the matter, by enforcement of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the appellants acquired occupancy right under Section 185 (l) (ii) (c) of the Act and the plaintiffs having taken no action for recovery of possession under Section 189 of the Code, the appellants acquired Bhumiswami rights. We find substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants.