DHANSINGH JASSOO AND OTHERS Vs. NATHOO PRASAD BALARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the respondent Nathoo Prasad against the three appellants for possession of Khaera No. 136, area 14.28 acres, in village Bhilkheda, Tehsil Barwani, District Khar cone. The trial Court had dismissed the suit, but in appeal the Additional District Judge, Nimar, reversed the judgment and decreed the claim. Accordingly, the defendants (appellants) have now come up in second appeal.

(2.) THE land in suit was originally held as a charitable Inam by one Sarasbai, who died without issues, and Chunnilal, who was the pujari of the temple and ancestor of the respondent, took possession of the land. The Barwani Darbar started proceedings against Chunnilal and on 10 -8 -19(9 the land was ordered to be taken over by the State. Chunnilal died in 1925 but apparently he had preferred an appeal to the Darbar. The matter was finally decided on 11 -12 -1934 by the order Ex. D/l, according to which the resumption of the Inam was maintained; but the respondent was permitted to continue to hold the land as raiyat, and the appellants were declared sub -tenants of the land entitled to continue on the land on certain terms detailed therein. Although Chunnilal was dead, no application for mutation was made till 1950, when on the application of the respondent his name was mutated in place of Chunnilal. In those proceedings, the appellants had objected to the mutation; but the objection was rejected. Thereafter, the respondent applied to the Tehsildar for restoring the possession of the land under the provisions of the 'Madhya Bbarat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. That application was rejected and so was an appeal preferred against the order on that application.

(3.) THESE fact are no longer in dispute, although when the initial arguments were addressed on the appeal, much was said about them. After the arguments were concluded and the case was reserved for judgment Shri Malgawa for the appellants made an application that on account of the enactment of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the status of the appellants has now been raised to that of an occupancy tenant and they are entitled to continue as such on the land. In other words, whatever may have been the position at the date of the institution of the suit, the subsequent events disentitle the respondent from claiming possession of the land. Shri Sanghi for the respondent replies to these arguments by stating (i) that the appellants were never inducted as sub -tenants by the respondent; and (ii) that section 185(1)(ii)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code does not apply to the case of the appellants. Both the parties are now agreed that for the purpose of the decision of this appeal it should be accepted that they were originally sub -tenants.