MOHAN SINGH Vs. DAGDI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants have filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.8.1975, passed in Civil Appeal No. 8 -A/71 by the Additional District Judge, West Nimar, Khargone affirming the judgment and decree dated 20th April, 1973, passed in Civil Suit No. 30 -A/71 by Civil Judge, Class I, West Nimar, Khargone.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal arc thus: One Narayan Singh was original Krishak of the suit land. Kh. No. 291, area 4.77 decimal, kh. No. 315 and 316 area 3.87 decimal: kh. No. 365 area 0.41 decimal and kh. no. 512 and 513 area 1.97 decimal, total area eleven acres one decimal, situated in village Gogwa, tahsil Khargone, West Nimar. After the death of Narayan Singh his widow Rukma Bai became limited owner and on enforcement of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (Act No. 60 of 1950; for short 'MBLRT Act') Rukma Bai being the Class I heir, specified in section 82 of the MBLRT Act, she became Pakka tenant. Plaintiff is the daughter of Narayan Singh, who was married to Mohan Singh, the defendant no. 1 the appellant no. 1. The defendant no. 1 turned out the plaintiff from his house and then started living with his mother -in -law Rukma Bai, who executed an agreement to sale -Ex. D. 1 on 9.3.1956 in favour of defendant No. 1, On 16.7.1956 Rukma Bai executed a registered sale deed Ex. D. 2/Ex. P. 5 in favour of defendant no. 1 for sale of suit land for a consideration of Rs. 2000/ -. Rukma Bai filed an application on 4.4.1956 before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate under section 70 (2) of the0 MBLRT Act for validation of the sale in favour of the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff filed objection on 9.5.1956. The Sub -Divisional Magistrate rejected the objection and validated the sale under section 70 (2) of the MBLRT Act vide order dated 3.12.1961. The plaintiff preferred an appeal (No. 37/62 -63) wherein Rukma Bai filed an application that the sale was bogus, without consideration and fraudulent. The defendant no. 1 in that appeal was proceeded ex parte. The Commissioner vide order dated 30.4.1964 (Ex. P. 1) allowed the appeal holding that the sale was a bogus transaction obtained without consideration by the son -in -law of Rukma Bai by misrepresenting the vendor with a view to defeat the claim of the plaintiff, the daughter of Rukma Bai.

(3.) RUKMA Bai died on 15.4.1970. On her death the plaintiff became the owner and Pakka tenant of the suit land, who, after the sale in favour of defendant no. 1, having been declared invalid, filed the suit on 14.10.1971, for declaration possession and for mesne profits of Rs. 500/ - for the year 1970 -71 and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month till the date of possession, on the averments that after the death of her father, she was the co -owner of the suit land with her mother Rukma Bai and was in possession of the suit land as such. The defendant no. 1, without consideration fraudulently got the sale -deed executed on 16.7.1956 with a view to defeat the interest of plaintiff. Rukma Bai could not have transferred the holding without prior sanction of the Collector. Sale was not validated and was ineffective. The sale deeds executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 to 4 are hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and does not transfer any right, title or interest as the defendant no. 1 had no right, title or interest in the suit land. After the death of her mother Rukma Bai on 15.4.1970, the plaintiff being sole heir of the deceased Narayan Singh, the rights of Bhumiswami devolved on her. The defendants no. 2 to 4 are occupying the suit land unauthorisedly, hence the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month. The cause of action first arose on 30.4.1964 when the sale was not validated and then on 15.4.1970 on the death of Rukma Bai.