CHINDHU Vs. RAMESWARNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The property in dispute in this case is an occupancy holding in the village of Chacheri in Balaghat of which the plaintiffs-respondents are the malguzars. The remaining order of the lower appellate Court shows very great confusion between Rules 23, 24 and 25 of Order 41 of the Civil P.C. The discussion in the first Court as to the validity of the adoption of Atmaram by Kolhu was, as the learned Additional District Judge pointed out, irrelevant, and the finding of that Court that Chindhu was not in possession before 1915-16 through various sub-tenants can only mean that the possession was with Maharu who denies it or Atmaram who had left the villages before 1910. These matters, however, do not affect the case.

(2.) IT has not been shown that Maharu and Kolhu were in any way related or that any ancestor, even the father of either of them, ever occupied the holding. It will be convenient to speak of Atmaram as the occupancy tenant of the holding in 1910, though it is just barely possible that the real tenant was the widow of Kolhu as, however, she joined in the transfer made by Atmaram that makes no difference. It has also to be accepted as true that Maharu was in no way related to Atmaram or Kolhu.

(3.) THE decision of the learned Additional District Judge is in effect as follows. The transfer by Mahru to Chindhu who is not his heir, was forbidden by Section 46 of the Tenancy Act 1898; but it could be avoided only by application to a Revenue Officer in the manner and to the extent provided by Sections 47 and 45 of that Act, as was explained in Ganeshdas v. Shankar [1912] 8 N.L.R. 22 so far as a civil Court is concerned therefore it is a good transfer. But the previous transfer by Atmaram to Maharu for Rs. 100 required registration of the sale deed, and the registration that was in fact effected must be treated as not having been effected at all; an unregistered sale for Rs. 100 or more is void under the ordinary civil law and not only under the Tenancy Act, and, therefore, the transfer must be treated as void in a civil Court without being set aside by a Revenue Officer. Maharu's title failing, Chindhu could derive none from him. The claim for possession was accordingly decreed.