The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rights in agricultural holdings are governed by the provisions of relevant tenancy laws, not by personal Hindu law, and the applicability of the Limitation Act to determine the limitation of suits.

Judgment

The present first appeal has been preferred by the defendants before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 16-1-11996 passed by Additional District Judge, Dhar in Civil Suit No. 7-A/85 (Motilal and two others vs. Shankar s/o Bheema Kulmi and seven others).

2. In the present case, a suit for partition, separate possession and mesne profits was filed by the plaintiffs Motilal, Kalu and Devkunwerbai. The genealogy of the parties of the suit is as under :-

3. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 12-5-1978 claiming themselves to be an indigent persons and a trial Court vide order dated 5-10-1981 permitted the plaintiffs to prosecute a suit as indigent persons. A written statement was preferred by the defendants and the plain averments were denied. Various amendments were carried out during the pendency of the suit. The suit properties are agricultural land and houses and the trial Court has held the appellants/defendants to be entitled for 7/10 share in the suit properties. The trial Court has also held that the sale deed marked as Exhibits-D-2 to D-8 were null and void being under consideration and therefore the defendants preferred this present appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

4. In the present case, the plaintiff/respondent No. 3 was the wife of appellant No. 1 Shankar and plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 were alleged to be sons of appellant Shankar borne from respondent No. 3, Devkunwerbai. Appellant No. 2 is the second wife of appellant-Shankar and appellants No. 3 to 7 are sons of appellant Shankar borne from appellant No. 2. Judgment delivered by the trial Court reveals that it was held by the trial Court that no divorce according to the custom of caste was proved between the appellant-Shankar and respondents No. 1 and 2 were not borne after divorce. The trial Court has also held that appellant No. 2 is legally married wife of appellant No. 1 and appellants No. 3 to 7 are their sons. On this basis, shares were declared in respect of appellants No. 2 to 7. It is pertinent to note that no appeal or cross objections have been filed by the respondents and therefore the findings have attained a finality. In the present appeal it is noteworthy to mention that the defendants in paragraphs-10 and 11 of the written statements have categorically pleaded that the suit lands were in ancestral land. The principle of Hindu law are not applicable to all the lands held by Pakka Tenant and Bhumiswami. Pakka Tenant as defined under section 54(vii) of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act (Act 66 of 1950) reads as under :-

"(vii) Pakka tenant - means a tenant who has been or whose predecessor in interest had been lawfully recorded in respect of his holding as a "Ryot Pattedar", "Mamuli Maurusi", "Gair Maurusi", and "Pukhta Maurusi" when this Act comes into force or who may in future be duly recognized as such by a competent authority.

Explanation - The term "Pukhta Maurusi" includes Istmurardar tenants, Malikana Haq-holder tenants, Hakkiyat Mutafarrikat, Sharah Mauyyana and Sakitulmilkiyat tenants."

5. The aforesaid Act came into force with effect from 6-6-1952. Section 82 of the Act reads as under :-

"82. Devolution of rights on the death of a male Pakka tenant. - When a male Pakka tenant dies, his interest in his holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of succession given below -

Class I - Son, grandson (son's son), great grandson (son's son's son), widow, predeceased son's widow, predeceased grandson's widow and predeceased great grandson's widow.

Explanation I - A grandson whose