KOMALCHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff against the judgment of the 2nd Civil Judge, Saugar, delivered on 29 -9 -1956, dismissing his suit.

(2.) ONE Gulabchand was the Malguzar and Lambardar of Patti No. 1 in Mouza Mara Imaliya. The Plaintiff -Appellant is the son of the said Gulabchand who had another son by name of Santosh Kumar. The Plaintiff's case is that on 5 -6 -1946 the lands in dispute were given by the Lambardar Gulabchand to his son Santosh Kumar in occupancy rights. At that time, the lands were under grass and were recorded as chhotoghas in the village papers. After the alleged gift, the lands were recorded in occupancy rights in the name of Santosh Kumar. At the time when the proprietary rights were abolished under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (No. 1 of 1951) -hereinafter called the Abolition Act -the lands were not recorded as vested in the State Government but were treated as occupancy lands of Santosh Kumar. On 31 -8 -1951 there was a partition in the family and the disputed lands fell to the share of the Appellant. He continued in possession of those lands. He applied on 4 -9 -1951 for transfer of the lands in his name in occupancy rights, but the Deputy Commissioner rejected the application on 2 -12 -1952 and ordered that the lands be recorded as chhotu -ghas. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed this suit for a declaration that the lands were held by him in occupancy rights. He also alleged that before the abolition of the proprietary rights, rent was paid by Santosh Kumar to his father Gulabchand and thereafter in the years 1950 and 1951 rent was paid by him to the Government, as the lands were recorded in occupancy rights in the name of Santosh Kumar.

(3.) THE trial Court held that Gulabchand had not leased out the lands to Santosh Kumar as alleged and that the lease deed, dated 5 -6 -1946, was not admissible in evidence being unstamped and unregistered. It was also found that the record in the village papers was made by the Patwari in collusion with Malguzar. Accordingly, it was held that the lands continued to be "chhotaghas" lands liable to be vested in the State. The suit was accordingly dismissed.