S. S. Sharma. J.

l. 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 1964 MPWN 148=1984 MPRCJ Note 77. and Bankimchandra Manilolji Sanghri v. Radhakishan Nandraj Sharma 1985 JLJ 793. 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 1984 JLJ 690= 1984 MPLJ 480. bad also been referred to and it felt that the question, which had been referred to the Bench was not directly in issue in Johnsons 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 Hemand Kumar has filed a suit some time in the year 1976 against the pr