SHANKERLAL Vs. PANKUNWAR BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by Order dated 3 -7 -1992 at the time of admission of this appeal: - -

(2.) THE facts relevant for the decision of the questions referred above are that Kunwarji was Khatedar of 25.60 acres of land of Khasra Nos. 524, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 539, 540, 541, 543, 544 and 546 of village Badodia Gadri, Tehsil Ashta, District Sehore. Plaintiff Ratanlal claimed that (a) he had orally purchased these lands from Kunwarji for Rs. 100/ - on 13 -5 -1940 and (b) he has perfected his title to these lands by adverse possession by remaining in actual possession from 1940 to 1962. The suit has been filed in the year 1970. The trial Court negatived his claim on both the counts and dismissed his suit for possession. In appeal the first appellate Court affirmed the finding on the first point. The oral sale was not upheld firstly because there was no registered sale -deed and secondly the permission of the Collector for transfer of these lands as per Section 188 of the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 was not obtained. This Section provided that permanent transfer of the lands could be effected to a person who was riot an agriculturist by profession with the sanction of the Collector and no such sanction was obtained. The plaintiff was not the holder of any agricultural land at that time. He was not Khatedar. Therefore, the plaintiffs case on the basis of oral sale could not succeed.

(3.) IN the plaint it has been stated that there was oral sale by Kunwarji. Plaintiff Ratanlal (PW 1) has deposed in para 1 that there was a written sale -deed. But no such sale -deed has been produced. The first document relied upon by the plaintiff is the statement which is said to have been made by Kunwarji on 14 -5 -1940 before the Tehsildar in Revenue Case No. 188/460 of 1940. That is marked as Ex. P -17. Its Hindi translation is Ex. P -17 -A. It has been stated by him that he is transferring eqUrfdy dj jgk gS the lands for Rs. 100/ -out of which he has received Rs. 50/ - and the remaining amount of Rs. 50/ - is due. The first appellate Court has not referred to the statement of plaintiff Ratanlal on the same date i.e., 14 -5 -1940 in the same case. That is marked as Ex. D -6. Its Hindi translation is Ex. D. 6 -A. It has been stated by him that Kunwarji is transferring eqUrfdy dj jgk gS the land from Fasli 48 for which he has paid Rs. 50/ - and he would further pay the remaining amount of Rs. 50/ - on receipt of the permission eUtwjh ds ckn vnk d:xk - The plaintiff has further stated therein that he was not holding any agricultural land at that time. It is clear from a reading of these statements that the revenue case in which these statements were made was for grant of permission to sell the land. In this case the Order passed by the Tehsildar is dated 22 -10 -1940 (Ex. P -18 -A) and in this Order also it is mentioned that Kunwarji wants to transfer the land to Ratanlal eqUrfdy dj jgk gS. The Tehsildar in the concluding part of the Order refused to grant the permission because the land revenue was outstanding against Kunwarji.