GAJRAJSINGH Vs. JAGATSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for either of the side did not challenge any finding of fact, but confined their arguments to the question of law mentioned above. THE learned Single Judge had allowed the appeal mainly on the consideration that section 185 (1) (ii) (b) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was not attracted. As regards the applicability of section 185 (1) (ii) (d) of the said Code, the learned Single Judge held that as Rughunathsingh was subject to a physical disability as contemplated under clause (v) of subsection (2) of section 168 of the said Code, it was sub-section (3) of section 185 of the Code, which was attracted and for that reason the present appellant Could not acquire the status of an occupancy tenant. For that position reliance was placed on the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Rao Nihalkaran v. Ramgopal(1966 MPLJ 712 SC=AIR 1966 SC 1485.)

(2.) THE respondents 1 and 2, namely, Jagatsingh and Mansingh, filed the present suit for partition and separate possession of their 2/5th share in the property left by Raghunathsingh. That claim of theirs was contested by the defendants on the ground that Gajrajsingh became an occupancy tenant. It is not necessary to examine the reasoning of the trial Judge or the first appellate Judge. But we may mention one material fact which was not specifically pointed out to the learned Single Judge that Raghunathsingh died in the year 1957 and at the time the M.P.Land Revenue Code, 1959 came into force, Raghunathsingh not being alive, the position of Gajrajsingh would be that of a trespasser, as per section 76 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950. THErefore, the question arises whether Gajrajsingh could acquire occupancy rights under section 185 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.

(3.) THEREFORE, as long as the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950, was in force, the appellant Gajrajsingh could evidently not acquire the rights of a Pakka tenant on account of the fact that the sub-lease in his favour had been granted by a disabled person.