BIHARILAL GOVERDHANDAS Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE questions referred to this Bench are:

(2.) THE facts of this case, so far as they are necessary, may be briefly stated. One Krishna Chandra Sharma was the proprietor and landlord of village Kishangarh Bhatnora. He executed in favour of his brother -in -law, Beharilal (appellant), a registered patta dated 4 January 1947 without any premium and thereby granted to him occupancy right in respect of 91 acres of land of the village in return for Rs. 40 payable annually as rent. When the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Bights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act), came into force, the Revenue Authorities refused to recognise the appellant as occupancy tenant of the land and treated it as vested in the State. Thereupon he instituted the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration that he was the occupancy tenant of the land.

(3.) ON the first question, our opinion is that the appellant can sue for a declaration of his title on the basis of the lease deed dated 4 January 1947 if it was a real as opposed to a fictitious document. On the other hand, if it was only a sham transaction by which the land was put in a false name and there was no intention to transfer any interest in the land to the appellant, he could not get under the deed any title to the land. In that event, although he may bring a suit for a declaration of his title, he would be disentitled to the relief claimed. Whether, in the instant case, the transaction is the one or the other is a question of fact requiring decision with due regard to all the circumstances of the case: Nainsukhdas Sheonarayan Shop v. Goverdhandas AIR 1948 Nag 110 : ILR 1947 Nag 510.