JUDGMENT

R. S. SARKARIA, J.:— This appeal is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

2. The following is the genealogy of the parties :

3. Smt. Gopikabai wife of Mukundrao, shown in the above pedigree-table, filed a suit in the Court of the civil Judges, Multai, against the defendant-appellant, Bhajya, and Sonu, respondent 2, for possession of Bhumiswami rights in the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 31 and 166 in the area of Village Kuthukhedi, Tehsil, Multai, District Betul, Madhya Pradesh.

4. The suit land originally belonged to Ghusya son of Dewaji. Ghusya died before the Settlement of 1918, and thereafter, this land was held by his son, Punjya, who died in the year 1936. On Punjyas death, the holding devolved on Punjyas widow, Smt. Sarji. Smt. Saroji died on November 6, 1956, and thereupon this dispute about the inheritance to the land left behind by Smt. Sarji, has arisen between the parties. Both the parties claim on the basis of Hindu Law.

5. The plaintiff-respondent, Smt. Gopikabai, claims that she being the daughter of Smr. Turji, a sister of the last male holder, Punjya, is an heir under S. 15 read with S. 2 (II) (4) (iv) of the Schedule referred to in S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, whereas the defendants claim as sapindas of the last male holder under Mitakshara Law.

6. It is alleged by the plaintiff that Bhajya and Sonu, defendants, took forcible possession of the suit land after the death of Smt. Sarji. Apart from possession, the plaintiff claimed Rs. 180/- as damages for the crop removed by the defendants.

7. The defendants case, as laid in the written statement, was that the suit property being an agricultural holding, in view of S. 4 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, the inheritance to the estate of Smt. Sarji who died on November 6, 1956, will not be governed by the provisions of that Act, but by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, according to which the defendant-sapindas are entitled to suit land to the exclusion of the last male holders sisters daughter, the plaintiff.

8. The trial Court decreed Smt. Gopikabais claim. On appeal, the Additional District Judge set aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the respondents suit.

9. In second appeal by the plaintiff, the High Court following its earlier decision in Kumari Ramlali v. Mst. Bhagunti Bai (AIR 1968 Madh Pra 247), held "that Bhumiswami and Bhaumidhari rights are not tenancy rights and S. 151 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, which deals with the devolution of interest of a Bhumiswami or a Bhumidhari tenure-holder, cannot be regarded as a provision dealing with the devolution of tenancy rights. Section 4 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in no way saves S. 151 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and it cannot be held that S. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act does not affect the personal law according to which the devolution of the interest of a tenure-holder passes under S. 151 of the Code." The High Court further held that the expression "heirs of the husband" in S. 15 (1) (b), as also in S. 15 (1) (b), refers to the heirs of the deceased husband, who would have succeeded under the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, if the husband had died on the date on which the female intestate actually died. On these premises, the High Court held that the plaintiff, Smt. Gopikabai, falls within Cl. (b) of S. 8. and, as such is entitled to succeed in preference to the defendant-agnates coming under Cl. (c) of that Section. In the result, the plaintiffs appeal was allowed and the decree of the trial court was restored.

10. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

11. The contentions canvassed before us by Mr. Sanghi, learned counsel for the appellants, are as under :

(i) Section 151 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 (in short, the Code) was a law for the devolution of tenancy rights in agricultural holdings, because under the scheme of the Code. Bhumiswamis and Bhumidharis were tenure-holders who could be