AMOL SINGH Vs. BHEROLAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.

(2.) The present second appeal filed u/S. 100 CPC assails the concurrent findings arrived at by both the courts below by dismissing the suit seeking decree for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of agricultural property.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the sale in question was not for bona fide reasons but was based on coercion arising out of indebtedness. It is contended that though there are no pleadings but the sale in question was in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 165 (7) M.P. Land Revenue Code 1959, as prior permission of the Collector was not obtained. It is further contended that the transaction of sale was in fact a transaction of repayment of loan. It is further contended that sale made was for the fulfillment of the necessity which arose due the respondent being alcoholic and thus it is contended that the misuse of the property in question is to be presumed. It is further contended that as per the statement of DW/2 Kailash only one Biswa of agricultural land was left after the sale in question was executed and therefore the bar in para u/S. 165 (7) comes into operation.