Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. It is the contention of the appellants that the defendants/appellants Nandram and Kashiram raised an objection that the land was purchased by Rukmani Bai after obtaining permission from the Collector and the suit for cancellation of sale deed could have been filed only under Section 377 of "Kanoonmal" and not before the Civil Court. It was also alleged that the suit was barred by limitation and was not maintainable without praying for the relief of cancellation of sale deed. The so called will in favour of Ajudhya Bai was contrary to the MPLRC and the same was not enforceable. It was also submitted that since Ajudhya Bai was not a child widow but became widow at the age of 26 years, therefore, the courts below acted illegally in ignoring the provisions of law and decreeing the suit without there being any prayer for relief of cancellation of sale deed. It is submitted that findings of the court below that since Ajudhya Bai had not executed the sale deed, therefore, there was no need to have prayed for cancellation of sale deed is perverse. It is further submitted that trial court did not take into consideration Ex.D/2 and D/2-A while holding the sale deed to be forged and since Ajudhya Bai died prior to amendment in MPLRC in December 1961, therefore, the amended provisions will not apply and as per the amended law property could not have been bequeathed by any Bhumiswami through a will. This will could not be acted upon in view of Section 165 of MPLRC before its amendment in December 1961. It is also submitted that as property could not have been bequeathed, probate will not have any effect or impact and the issue of limitation was not considered by the courts below properly. It is also submitted that courts below have failed to take into consideration the provisions of Section 169 of MPLRC dealing with the rights of occupancy tenant accrued to defendants and without appreciating such provisions decreed the suit. It is also submitted that possession of the suit property could not have been obtained by process of civil court in view of provisions contained in Section 168 (4) read with Section 257 of the MPLRC.

18. Once this amendment has been allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then impact of such amendment is to be examined in the light of the provisions of Section 164 of the MPLRC. Section 164 of the MPLRC before it was amended by the Amending Act No.38 of 1961 dt.2.12.1961 reads as under :-

"164. Devolution.-(1) Notwithstanding any law, custom or usage to the contrary, the interest of a Bhumi-swami shall on his death devolve in accordance with the order of succession given below:-

21. Thus, it is apparent that the provisions of Section 164 of MPLRC were valid provisions and therefore what is to be examined is that whether by virtue of amendment in the plaint making an alternate plea that even if will executed by Ajudhya Bai in favour of Ramkali is held to be not in terms of provision of Section 164 of MPLRC as it was executed prior to amendment in Section 164 of MPLRC on 8.12.1961, then whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the title and possession of the suit property on the basis of they being near relatives of Ajudhya Bai falling under Class XVII below Section 164 of the MPLRC.

22. In this regard finding of the learned trial court that plaintiffs namely Dinesh, Satish, Sanjay and Rajendra being paternal uncle's will come under Clause XVII as defined under Explanation II below the unamended provisions of sub section (1) of Section 164, the interest in the property shall devolve upon the nearest survivor of her husband, as ascertained in accordance with the provisions of sub section (1) of Section 164 of MPLRC. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that second substantial question of law namely whether Ramkali is entitled to succeed the suit property left behind by Ajudhya Bai under Section 164 of the MPLRC is to be answered in positive, inasmuch as Ramkali after amendment in the plaint became representative of the interest of the respondents No.2,3,4 and 5 and in that capacity respondents No.2,3,4 and 5 being close relatives of Ajudhya Bai i.e. paternal uncle's sons, as given in Clause XVII, became entitled to succeed to the estate of Ajudhya Bai, which was received by her admittedly from her husband as is apparent from pedigree reproduced above. Thus, when this second substantial question of law, namely; "Whether the Ramkali is entitled to succeed the suit property left behind by Ayodhyabai under Section 164 of M.P.Land Revenue Code ?" is answered in favour of the plaintiffs, then the natural consequence is that this appeal has to fail and is dismissed.