AMAR SINGH Vs. RANA BALBAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In 1936 certain home farm land in Mauza Belam Bujurg, Paragana Burwaha, of the estate of the respondent were leased for cultivation to one Mongtya by the Court of Wards which was in management of the estate. The Court of Wards released the estate on June 14, 1951. The respondent thereafter terminated the tenancy and instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Burwaha, against Mangtya for a decree in ejectment and for mesne profits. The Trial Court decreed the suit for possession and awarded mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 300 per annum from the date of the decree till delivery of possession. The decree passed by the Trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the District Court, Nimar, and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Sons of Mangtya, who died after the Judgment of the High Court, have preferred this appeal with special leave.

(2.) The land in dispute is ryotwari land and Mongtya was a ryotwari sub-lessee of the land. It was contended before the High Court in Rao Nihalkaran vs. Ramchandran, L. P. A. No. 14 of 1961, dated 24-9-1962 (M. P.) that even though a ryotwari sub-lessee of land in the Madhya Bharat region any ordinatily acquire under S. 185 (1) (ii) (b) on the commencement of the Code the status of an occupancy tenant, the tenant Mangtya was disentitled to that status since at the commencement of the tenancy the respondent was subject to a disability of the character set out in S. 168 (2). The High Court upheld the plea of the respondent:they held that the expression "holds the land from a Bhumiswami who belongs to any one or more of the classes" predicates tow conditions - that the land is held by a tenant under a Bhumiswami, and that at the commencement of the tenancy the landlord who subsequently acquired the status of a Bhumiswami belonged to any one or more of the classes mentioned in sub-section (2) of S. 168 of the Code.

(3.) The only question which falls to be determined in this appeal is whether under S. 185 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code the tenant Mangtya was disqualified from claiming the status of an occupancy tenant. By S. 157 of the Code there was to be in the State of Madhya Pradesh a single class of tenure holders of land held from the State to be known as Bhumiswami. The respondent may by virtue of S. 158 (b) be deemed to be a Bhumiswami. The rights of a Bhumiswami under the Code are heritable, but in the matter of transfer inter vivos they are subject to restrictions prescribed by Ss. 165 and 168. Land comprised in the holding of a Bhumiswami may not by virtue of S. 168 (1) be transferred by way of a lease, except in the conditions mentioned in sub-sections (2) and (3) of S. 168. A Bhumiswami subject to one or more of the disabilities mentioned in sub-section (2) may grant a lease of his holding. It has to be noticed that the provisions which create the tenure of a Bhumiswami and the restrictions thereon are prospective. We have held in appeal No. 365 of 1965 - Rao Nihalkaran vs. Ramgopal - that a person whose tenancy rights were determined before the commencement of the Code will be invested with the status of an occupancy tenant provided he holds land of the nature described in sub-section (1) of S. 185. But upon this rule is engrafted an exception by sub-section (3) of S. 185 that nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to a person who at the commencement of the Code holds the land from a disabled Bhumiswami.