DALCHAND AJUDHI BRAHMAN Vs. KAMALABAI MAKHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal by one of the defendants in the suit was admitted on 22-6-1984 on the following substantial questions of law : -

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit for declaration of her title and possession over the suit properties, consisting of agricultural lands, houses and open plots. She claimed herself to be the real sister of Mangal alias Mathura Prasad, who was the admitted owner of the suit properties and asserted her right over the suit properties as next reversioner of Mangal after the remarriage of his widow, the respondent No. 2. The suit was contested by the appellant, who claimed the suit properties by virtue of a Will executed in his favour on 12-6-1948 by the deceased Mangal. He further claimed sub-leases of the agricultural lands in his favour from the respondent No. 2 and acquisition of the right of a "pakka" tenant by virtue of section 38 (2) of the Madhya Bharat Abolition act, Samvat 2008. However, the suit was decreed to the extent of agricultural lands (hereafter called the "suit land") which was affirmed by the impugned decree of the lower appellate Court.

(3.) IT was not disputed that Mangal alias Mathura Prasad died on 22-9-1948 and on the date of his death, as also on the date of execution of the alleged will by him, quanoon Mal, Gwalior, Samvat 1983 was in force. He was issueless and had left behind him his mother Smt. Pyari Dulhan and widow, the respondent No. 2, who remarried in samvat year 2013-14, i. e. in August, 1956. On the date of her remarriage, Hindu succession Act, 1956 and the Madhya P adesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, samvat 2007 were in force. It was also not in dispute that the name of the appellant was recorded as subtenant in revenue papers in respect of the suit land since Samvat year 2006 and that after five years, i. e. in Samvat year 2011, he obtained the rights of a 'pakka' tenant in the suit land in accordance with the provisions of section 38 of the Madhya bharat Zamindari Abolition Act from the Revenue Court. In other words, the rights of a "pakka" tenant were acquired by the appellant before the date of remarriage of the respondent No. 2.