( 1. ) CERTAIN questions which are enumerated hereinafter, have been referred to the Full Bench for its opinion. It is mainly concerning interpretation of the word actual possession in Explanation (1) to section 38 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under which Pucca tenancy rights are conferred on tenants, sub-tenants and tenants of sub-tenants and the explanation clarifies that the pucca tenancy right shall accrue or be acquired in respect of such land only as may be in the actual possession of the tenants or sub-tenants or tenant of a sub-tenant. The learned single Judge also noted that the Single Bench decisions in Kanal Singh v. Anandlal (1967 RN 20) of Niwaskar J. and in Dhapu Bai v. Samandar (Second Appeal No. 488 of 1966 decided on 2-3-1977 at Indore) of Sohani J. to be in conflict with the earlier decision of this court in Dimansingh v. Rameshwar (1964jlj 279) of Shivdayal J. (as he then was) and also the Division Bench decision in Pancham Singh v. Dhani Ram (1977 MPLJ 787) affirming the decision in Dimansinghs case (supra ).

( 2. ) THE facts of the case are to be stated in order to properly appreciate the quest