( 1 ) WHEN this matter came before the learned Single Judge, he felt that the correctness of the two single Bench decisions of this Court in Nanuram v. Pundlik, 1984 M. P. R. C. J. Note 77 and Bankimchandra Manilaji Sanghvi v. Radhakishan Nandraj Sharma 1984 M. P. L. J. 480 required consideration by a larger Bench. Accordingly honourable the Chief Justice constituted a Division Bench. The Division Bench also seems to have taken note of some more single Bench decisions of this Court on the point in question. A Division Bench decision of this Court in B. Johnson v. C. S. Naidu, 1985 Jab LJ 793 had also been referred to, and it felt that the question, which had been referred to the Bench was not directly in issue in Johnson's case (supra ). All the same, in view of the observations made therein, the Division Bench felt that to set at rest the controversy, the matter required further consideration by a still larger Bench. Accordingly this Full Bench came to be constituted.

( 2 ) BEFORE dealing with the question in controversy, it would be appropriate to refer to some relevant facts. Respondent Hemant Kumar has filed a suit sometime in the year 1976 against the present petiti