DARYAV Vs. RAKHABDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners assailed the order of Revenue Board holding that by virtue of section 71 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1950, they together as joint tenants were entitled to the exemption of 15 acres of land in all from attachment and sale in execution of the respondents' decree. The petitioners holding consists of 79.8 acres of land held jointly. The question, therefore, arises whether in a holding each one of the joint tenants is entitled to claim exemption of 15 acres of land individually, or the joint tenants collectively are entitled to the total exemption of 15 acres.

(2.) IN this connection, it is to be noted that a similar provision hag been made in section 165 (7) (a) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 exempting five acres of irrigated land and ten acres of un irrigated land from attachment and sale in execution of a decree in stated circumstances.

(3.) IN this connection, we might further observe that there arc two Single Bench decisions of the High Court on this point. Newaskar, J. in Tarachand and other Vs. Kala and another [1968 JLJ -SN 44], with reference to section 165 (7) (a) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, took the view that all the joint tenant together would be entitled to the exemption provided by the section; and not that each joint tenant would be entitled to it individually. The reasoning of the learned judge was based on the definition of the word 'holding' as per section 2 (1) (i) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, which means a parcel of land separately assessed to land revenue and held under one tenure. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Judge in the said case as the exemption granted is in respect of a holding, and not in respect of each individual joint tenant. As per the definition of the word 'tenure holder' as provided by section 2 (z) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 it means a person who holds land from the State Government and who is or is deemed to be a Bhumiswami under the provisions of this Code. We agree with the view of Newaskar, J. that in the case of joint tenants, they together would be considered to be tenure -holder, and not that each one of the joint tenants would be a separate tenure -holder. That would be the position so far as section 165 (7) (a) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. 1959 is concerned.