AMAR SINGH AND OTHERS versus RANA BALBAHADUR SINGH

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 423 · Decided: 27-01-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
... 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
AMAR SINGH AND OTHERS 
v . 
RANA BALBAHADUR SINGH 
January 27, 1966 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, c. J., K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SHAH, 
S. M. SIKRI AND V. RM!ASWAMI, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 s. 185(1) ands. 185(3) 
read with s. 168(2)-lease of ryotwari land prior to commencement of A.ct 
--Bhumiswami minor on date of lease but not at commencement of Act-
Whether belonged to class of disabled persons within the meaning of 
s. 168(2)-Therefore whether lessee became occupancy tenant under s. 
185(1). 
Jn 1936, certain ryotwari lands belonging to the estate of the respon-
dent in Madhya Bharat were leased for cultivation to the appellants' father 
M by the Court of Wards which was in management of the estate. After 
the Court of Wards released the estate in 1951, the respondent terminated 
the tenancy 0nd instituted a suit for a decree in ejectment and for mesne 
profits. 
The trial Court passed a decree in the respondent's favour and 
this was confirmed in appeal by the District Court as well as by the High 
Court. 
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that on the coming into 
force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, M acquired the 
status of an occupancy tenant as he held land of the nature described by 
s. 185 ( 1). On the other hand it was the respondent's contention that 
even though a ryotwari sub-lessee might acquire the status of an occupancy 
tenant; the tenant M was disentitled to that status since at the commence~ 
ment of the tenancy the respondent, was subject to a disability of the 
character set out in s. 168(2). Accordingly, the case fell within the 
exception to s. 185(1) provided in sub-s. (3) of that section. 
HELD . By virtue of s. 185 (1), M became an occupancy tenant of 
the land when the Code was brought into operation; the appeal must 
therefore be allowed and the respondent's suit dismissed. [426 El 
For the exemption from the operation of s. 185 (I) to apply, it had 
to be established that the respondent at the commencement of the code 
beloni:ed to the disabled class. 
Although being a minor he belonged to 
the dISabled class at the time when the lease was granted, he did not be-
lon.\l to the di•abled class at the commencement of the Code. What is 
decisive for the operation of the exemption under s, 185(3) read with 
G 
s. 168(2) is the status at the commencement of the code. [425 EJ 
Rao Nihalkaran v. Ramgopal [1966] 3 S.C.R. 427; referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 354 of 1965 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
December 18, 1962 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore 
H 
Bench) in Second Appeal No.77 of 1960. 
B. R. L. Iyengar, G. L. Sanghi and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the 
appellants. 
423 
M !~Sup.C. T./66~· 14 
424 
SUPREME COURT 
RF.PORTS 
[ 1966] 3 S.C.R. 
S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Narh and P. L. Vo/Ira, for the res-
A 
pondcnt. 
B. R. L. Iyengar, G. L. Sanglzi and A. G. Ratnaparklzi, for 
intervener No. I. 
J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ra1·inder Narain, for 
interi;encr No. 2. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. 
Jn 1936 certain home farm land in Mouza Bclam 
Bujurg, Paragana Burwaha, of the estate of the respondent were 
leased for culti\'ation to one Mangtya by the Court of Wards which 
was in management of the estate. The Court of Wards released 
the estate on June 14, 1951. The respondent thereafter terminated 
the tenancy and instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, 
Class IJ, Burwaha, against Mangtya for a decree in ejectment 
and for 
mesne profits. The Trial 
Court decreed the 
suit 
for possession and awarded mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 300/-
per annum from the date of the decree till delivery of pos-
session. The decree passed by the Trial Court was confirmed in 
appeal by the District Court, Nimar, and the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh. Sons of Mangtya, who died after the judgment of 
this High Court have preferred this appeal with special leave. 
c 
D 
The land in dispute is ryotwari land and Mangtya was a ryot-
wari sub-lessee of the land. It was contended before the High 
E 
Court in Rao Niha/karan v. Ramchandra & Otlzersl that even though 
a ryotwari sub-lessee of land in the Madhya Bharat region may 
ordinarily acquire under s. 185 (l)(ii)(b) on the commencement of 
the Code the status of an occupancy tenant, the tenant Mangtya 
was disentitled to that status since at the commencement of the 
tenancy the respondent was subje

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.