MED RAM Vs. MAHAJANU DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this regular second appeal was admitted on a number of questions of law but, in my opinion, only the following substantial question of law arises in this case:

(2.) THE facts necessary for disposal of this case are that one Smt. Kansu was non -occupancy tenant on the suit land. She was granted proprietary rights and mutation in her name was sanctioned on 22.5.1976. Smt. Kansu died issueless and intestate. The Plaintiff, who is the niece of the husband of Smt. Kansu succeeded to her estate and became owner in possession of the suit land. On 3.8.1980 original Plaintiff Smt. Mahajanu entered into an agreement with Smt. Vidyawati agreeing to sell the suit land to Smt. Vidyawati for a consideration of Rs. 6000/ -. The entire amount was paid and possession handed over to Smt. Vidyawati.

(3.) THEREAFTER , Smt. Mahajanu, heir of Smt. Kansu, filed the present suit for possession of the suit land mainly on the ground that the agreement was void and violative of Section 113 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Both the Courts have decided this issue in favour of the Plaintiff.