MT. GOURA Vs. SHRIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting and important question relating to the Tenancy Law of these provinces arises in the present case. The present long drawn out litigation is concerned with a suit to recover possession of absolute occupancy and occupancy fields described in para. 2 of the plaint. The original male-holder was one Govinda, as shown in the genealogical table contained in the judgment dated 22nd March 1926, of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Chhindwara. After Govind's death, his mother Mt. Hiria succeeded to the property and remained in possession until 1920.

(2.) I may say here that we are only now concerned with the absolute occupancy fields. Defendant 1, Mt. Goura, is the sister of the deceased Govinda, while defendant 2 Jairam is Goura's son. After Hiria's death, they remained in possession of the property, and the malguzar plaintiff sued for their ejectment on the ground that they were not the next reversioners of Govinda on the death of Hiria. Hallifax, A.J.C., in Mt. Goura v. Shriram A.I.R. 1926 Nag. 265, remanded the case for retrial for reasons which are clear from his judgment, and, in para. 7 thereof, the following dictum appears: The decision that the malguzar can eject Jairam because there are nearer heirs than Jairam in existence will be seen to be impossible if it is considered what the decision would have been if a nearer heir than Jairam but not the nearest, had taken possession and Jairam had sued to eject him; the malguzar is merely the last reversioner and comes after Jairam.

(3.) AN interesting and able argument has been advanced by the counsel on either side in this Court on the question involved. On behalf of the appellants it has been urged that an absolute occupancy tenant occupies a quasi proprietary position: of: Ragho v. Sadoo [1909] 6 N.L.R. 6. It has been suggested, therefore, that an absolute occupancy tenant is practically recognized as the proprietor of his land; that, therefore, the landlord cannot coma in until the whole line of heirs is exhausted and that, until the latter eventuality happens, the malguzar's right cannot arise.