RAMSINGH Vs. SHANKARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question has been referred to this Bench for opinion (by a Division bench):-" whether Ikramuddin v. Gulabkhan, (1966 Revenue Nirnaya 1) was correctly decided when it held that a holding means a plot held by a bhumiswami separately assessed to land revenue ?"

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are these:-Respondent shankarlal held a decree for money against the appellant Ramsingh. In execution of this decree, he attached certain agricultural lands held by ramsingh in Bhumiswami rights under three different survey Nos. respectively measuring 17. 19,6. 63 and 11. 89 acres. These lands were sold one by one by public auction and, with the leave wanted by (the Executing Court, the decree- holder purchased all the lands,

(3.) THE judgment-debtor, after the sales were confirmed, challenged the sales on grounds with which we are presently not concerned. After these objections were disallowed he, for the first time in an appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 54 of 1967), raised an objection that the sales were in contravention of Section 165 (7) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and were liable to be set aside. In that appeal it was held by Krishnan, J. that this objection. having been not raised at the appropriate stage, was not tenable. Against that judgment, the judgment-debtor in the present appeal under the Letters patent, raised the same objection. Tare and Sen, jj. who heard this appeal were of the view that the decision taken by a Division bench of this Court in 1966 RN 1 required reconsideration by a larger Bench. They, accordingly, under Chapter I, Rule 12 of the High Court Rules requested our Lord the Chief Justice for referring the above question to a Full Bench. This is how the matter has come before us.