P. K. Tare, J.

(After stating the facts in paragraphs 1 to 4 the judgment proceeds-)

The learned counsel for either of the side did not challenge any finding of fact, but confined their arguments to the question of law mentioned above. The learned Single Judge had allowed the appeal mainly on the consideration, that section 185(1)(ii)(b) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was not attracted. As regards the applicability of section 185(1)(ii)(d) of the said Code, the learned Single Judge held that as Rughunathsingh was subject to a physical disability as contemplated under clause (v) of subsection (2) of section 168 of the said Code, it was sub-section (3) of section 185, of the Code, which was attracted and for that reason the present appellant Could not acquire the status of an occupancy tenant. For that position reliance was placed on the pronouncement of their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Rao Nihalkaran v. Ramgopal 1966 MPLJ 712 (SC) : AIR 1966 SC 1485.

The respondents 1 and 2, namely, Jagatsingh and Mansingh, filed the present suit for partition and separate possession of their 2/5th share in the property left by Raghunathsingh. That claim of theirs was contested by