( 1. ) THIS second appeal by one of the defendants in the suit was admitted on 22-6-1984 on the following substantial questions of law : -

(i) Whether the Court below has committed a serious error of law in interpreting section 256 of the Quanoon Mal, Gwalior, Samvat Year 1983 that it prohibits bequest of the suit land and therefore Ex. D. 2, the will executed by mangal alias Mathura Prasad in favour of defendant No. 1 appellant Dalchand is invalid? [note :- By an apparent typing mistake section 256, Quanoon Mai, has been, wrongly mentioned. It must be section 265. ]

(ii) Whether the Court below has committed a serious error of law in holding that the Pattas Ex. D. 1 and Ex. D. 4 are invalid, being contrary to the provisions of section 74 (2) of the M. B. Land Revenue and Tenancy Act in as much as that law was not applicable at the time these Pattas were granted?

( 2. ) THE respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit for declaration of her title and possession over the suit properties, consisting of agricultural lands, houses and open plots. She claimed herself to be the real sister of Mangal alias Mathura Prasad, who was the admitted owner of the suit properties and asserted her right over the suit properties as next reversioner of Mangal after the remarriage of his widow, the respondent No. 2. The suit was contested by the appellant, who claimed the suit properties by virtue of a Will executed in his favour on 12-6-1948 by the deceased Mangal. He further claimed sub-leases of the agricultural lands in his favour from the respondent No. 2 and acquisition of the right of a "pakka" tenant by virtue of section 38 (2) of the Madhya Bharat Abolition act, Samvat 2008. However, the suit was decreed to the extent of agricultural lands (hereafter called the "suit land") which was affirmed by the impugned decree of the lower appellate Court.

( 3. ) IT was not disputed that Mangal alias Mathura Prasad died on 22-9-1948 and on the date of his death, as also on the date of execution of the alleged will by him, quanoon Mal, Gwalior, Samvat 1983 was in force. He was issueless and had left behind him his mother Smt. Pyari Dulhan and widow, the respondent No. 2, who remarried in samvat year 2013-14, i. e. in August, 1956. On the date of her remarriage, Hindu succession Act, 1956 and the Madhya P adesh Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, samvat 2007 were in force. It was also not in dispute that the name of the appellant was recorded as subtenant in revenue papers in respect of the suit land since Samvat year 2006 and that after five years, i. e. in Samvat year 2011, he obtained the rights of a pakka tenant in the suit land in accordance with the provisions of section 38 of the Madhya bharat Zamindari Abolition Act from the Revenue Court. In other words, the rights of a "pakka" tenant were acquired by the appellant before the date of remarriage of the respondent No. 2.

( 4. ) IT is now well settled that the devolution or the competency or incompetency to dispose of property in any particular mode is governed by the law applicable on the date of devolution or the date of disposition of property. On the relevant dates in the present ease, Quanoon Mal was in force. The mode of devolution and power of disposition of agricultural holdings were provided in sections 253 and 265 of Quanoon Mal, which read as follows :-

( 5. ) THE learned counsel for the appellant submitted that section 265 of Quanoon mal did not specifically prohibit bequest of agricultural lands, and therefore, the Will (Ex. D. 2) executed in his favour by the deceased Mangal should not have been declared invalid or ineffective in law. He also referred to the Chapter on Wills in Mullas Hindu law and contended that late Mangal was competent to execute the alleged will in favour of the appellant.

( 6. ) THE said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Section 265 Quanoon Mal recognised transfers only by sale or mortgage. Consequently it must be held that by nece