Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. In order to examine the respective contentions of the parties on the question of the effect of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 (II of 1917), the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, 1920 (I of 1920), and the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act. There is no dispute that the suit lands are entered in the name of the defendants to the two suits as khudkasht lands. Section 2(5) of the C.P. Land Revenue Act defines a khudkashi land as that part of the home-farm of a mahal which is cultivated by the proprietor as such and which is not sir land. It is not necessary to refer to the two explanations to this definition. Section 2(17) defines sir land, but it is not necessary to refer to that definition either. Section 2(6) defines 'lambardar' as meaning the proprietor of a mahal appointed to discharge the duties imposed on a lambardar by the Act. Section 188(1) enumerates the duties of the lambardar, while Section 188(2)(a) states that the lambardar shall, in the mahal or patti for which he is appointed, be'deemed to be the landlord within the meaning of the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, 1898; and under Clause (d) of Section 188(2), the lambardar has the power, if necessary, to institute suits and take other proceedings relating to the exercise of his powers of the lambardar and against trespassers on the common property. Then we turn to the provision of the C.P. Tenancy Act, 1920. Section 6-A of this Act refers to landlord's right of pre-emption. Sections 23 and 24 dealt with the landlord's right to recover arrears of rent by ejectment of the tenant and the procedure to be followed by a Revenue Officer in execution of a decree for arrears by ejectment. These two sections are omitted by the C.P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1939; but there is no dispute that when Moreshwar filed ejectment proceedings against the tenants, these provisions of the Tenancy Act were in force. Section 89 of this Act refers to surrender of holding by a tenant in favour of the landlord. As I have already stated, the suit lands were acquired by Moreshwar by instituting ejectment and pre-emption proceedings and getting surrender of some of these lands. Under Section 188(2) of the C.P. Land Revenue Act, as already seen, the lambardar is to be deemed to be the landlord within the meaning of the C.P. Tenancy Act, and it is the lambardar who would be taking proceedings and instituting suits on behalf of the proprietary body in pre-emption and ejectment proceedings and getting surrender deeds from the tenants. There can, therefore, be no doubt that when Moreshwar obtained these lands before 1940, lie was acting as the lambardar of the two villages and acquired the lands for the whole body of the proprietors consisting of himself and his brother Gajanan, and since he acquired these lands for the proprietors, Gajanan would be entitled to a share in those lands, subject to his liability to contribute the necessary amount of expenses incurred by Moreshwar; and as I have already stated, Mr. Bobde does not dispute this legal position that so far as the acquisition proceedings are concerned, they were taken by Moreshwar as a lambardar and he acquired these lands for the proprietorship, which consisted of himself and his brother Gajanan. But then Mr. Bobde's contention is that the definition of khudkasht shows that it is a land which is cultivated by the proprietor as such, and, therefore, since Moreshwar was in possession of these lands and cultivating them, and since Gajanan had nothing to do with this cultivation, these lands became the khudkasht of Moreshwar alone, and they were entered as such in the records of the two villages. And Mr. Bobde further contends that since the only title on which Gajanan can base his present suits for partition being that of a co-sharer in the proprietorship of these two villages and since that proprietorship itself has been abolished, the suits are not maintainable. That takes me to the provisions of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act.