The validity of agricultural leases under the Transfer of Property Act and the M. P. Land Revenue Code must comply with the specific provisions of Section 117 and Section 168, respectively.

( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8-1-1997 passed by First Additional District Judge, Morena, in Civil Appeal No. 133-A/94, whereby the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge class I, Ambah, District Morena, dated 16-9-1994 in C. S. No. 156-A of 1989 has been set aside, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

( 2 ) THE substantial questions of law involved in this appeal are : (1) Whether the provisions of lease are applicable to agricultural lease ? (2) Whether under the provision of section 117 of the Transfer of Property Act, lease of agricultural land requires registration ?

( 3 ) SHORT facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction alleging that the land bearing survey No. 349, measuring 3 Bighas 1 Biswa, situated at village jkahara, Tahsil Ambah, District Morena (which shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'suit property) is in occupation of the appellants. It was alleged that in the revenue record the name of respondents 1 and 2 has been recorded as Bhumiswami but they were never in occupation of the suit property. Further case of the appellants was that jabar Singh, predecessor-in-title of the appellants, was in occupation of the suit property prior to the Zamindari Abolition Act. In samvat 2018 Vijai Bahadur Singh, predecessor-in-title of respondents 1 and 2, leased out the suit property to Jabar Singh for a period of 50 years on payment of premium of Rs. 200/- and on payment of lease rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per year. It was alleged that the predecessor-in-title of the appellants, Jabar Singh, died in the year 1982 and after his death the appellants are in occupation of the suit property. It was alleged that since the lease in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the appellant was against the provisions of Section 168 of the m. P. Land Revenue Code, 1969 the appellants have become Bhumiswami of the suit property. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings it was prayed that the appellants are bhumiswami of the suit property and respondents 1 and 2 be restrained from interfering with the possession of the appellants. Respondents 1 and 2 submitted written statement wherein plaint allegations were denied. It was also denied that the suit property was leased out by Vijai Bahadur singh to the predecessor-in-title of Jabar singh. ( 4 ) ON the basis of pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence and decreed the suit holding that jabar Singh, predecessor-in-title of the appellants and, after his death, the appellants are in occupation of the suit property, and from the evidence it is also proved that there was a lease agreement between the parties. Learned trial Court also restrained respondents No. 1 and 2 from interfering with the possession of the appellants. In appeal, learned appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court holding that it is not indicated in Khasra entries Ext. P/1 to Ext. P/7) as to how the name of the appellants has been mutated. It was also found that from reading together (Ex. P/1 to Ex. P/7 and Ext. D/l it is found that from Samvat 2019 to Samvat 2035 the appellants were shown in possession in column 12 of the revenue Record but the appellate Court held that since the lease for a period of 50 years is based on oral lease agreement, no lease can be granted under Section 105 or section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Learned appellate Court further held that since the witnesses of the appellants have state that Vijai Bahadur Singh, predecessor-in-titie of respondents 1 and 2 was an old man, he was covered under the proviso to Section 168 of the M. P. Land Revenue code. Hence, no rights of Bhumiswami have accrued to the appellants. Thus, the appeal was allowed and the judgment and, decree passed by the trial Court was set aside.

( 5 ) SHRI P. C. Chandil, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the findings of the appellate Court that Sethbandhu and A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document