RAMNIWAS Vs. JAGTBAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff, which was admitted by a Bench of this Court on following substantial questions of law:--

(2.) The defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6, i.e., legal representatives of vendor of the plaintiff namely Suryadeen in the joint written statement admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Similarly, defendant Nos. 2 and 5 also admitted the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 7 on service of summons neither entered appearance nor filed the written statement. Consequently, he was proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff adduced evidence and examined himself as well as one witness namely Sukhdev Singh Gond. The witnesses of the plaintiff were not cross-examined by the defendants.

(3.) The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19-3-1989, inter alia held that the purchase dated 15-6-1957 in favour of the plaintiff has not been proved and the plaintiff has not prescribed title by adverse possession. It was further held that in view of Section 170B of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the sale in favour of the plaintiff is invalid, as he is a non-tribal. The Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 4-7-1998, inter alia held that at the time of purchase of the suit land, the plaintiff was minor and, therefore, the purchase is void. It was further held that in view of Section 165(6) of the Code and in the absence of permission from the Collector, no alienable interest was transferred to the plaintiff and consequently, he could not be held to have perfected his title by adverse possession.