The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and the Rewa Registration Act in a land dispute case.

Alok Aradhe, J.:-

This appeal is by defendants No. 1, 2 and 5, which was admitted on following substantial questions of law: -

“1. Whether in view of the averments in para-9 of the plaint, the defendants were put in possession as Adhiyadar sharing crops till 1983, being in contravention of section 168 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, the appellants defendants have acquired the status of occupancy tenant and by operation of law the Bhumi Swami?

2. Whether the approach of both the Courts below with respect of section 21 of the Rewa Registration Act is sustainable in view of the provision of section 1 of the same Act ?”

2. Facts leading to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the original plaintiff filed a suit on the ground that suit lands admeasuring 2.67 acres were allotted on lease to his father namely Bhura and defendant No. 1's grandfather namely Babadeen some time in the year 1924-25, who had half share each in the suit lands. It was further pleaded that Bhura died 40 years ago and on his death, his interest in the suit land devolved on plaintiff namely Ramsajivan. On Babadeen's death his interest in the suit lands devolved on defendants No. 1 and 2's father namely Bhagwatdeen and after his death, on defendant's No. 1 and 2. It was also pleaded that parties were in joint possession of the suit lands. However, in the year 1970, the original plaintiff suffered from leprosy and was unable to carry out the agricultural operations and, therefore, handed over the suit lands for cultivation to defendants in lieu of which defendants agreed to share the crop. However, defendants No. 1 and 2 got prepared a forged sale deed and got their name mutated in the revenue records. In the year 1983, the defendants No. 1 and 2 refused to share the proceeds of the crop from the suit lands. The plaintiff therefore filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration that order of mutation in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 is null and void. The plaintiff also sought the relief of possession, damages and mesne-profits.

3. The defendants No. 1 and 2 filed the written statement in which inter alia it was pointed out that Ramsajivan in the year 1946 had sold his share in the suit land to Bhagwatdeen for a consideration of 85 vide Ex. D/1 and since then, Bhagwatdeen is in possession of the suit land as owner thereof. It was further pleaded that in the year 1966, defendants No. 1 and 2 sold the land admeasuring 1.29 acres to one Rajkishore and the order of mutation dated 4-11-1970 has been passed with the consent of the plaintiff. Alternatively, the plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession was also taken in the written statement.

4. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12-3-1998 inter alia held that execution of sale deed Ex. D/1 has not been proved as neither the scribe nor any person conversant with the signature of the witnesses to the sale deed has been examined by defendants No. 1 and 2. It was further held that since 1947 till 1985, the sale deed (Ex. D/1) did not see the light of the day and was produced for the first time in the year 1985. It was also held that if any document was executed in the year 1946 for a consideration of more than 25, the same required registration in view of Rewa Registration Act, 1917 and since Ex. D/1 i.e. the sale deed is unregistered, therefore, the same was excluded from consideration. The trial Court further held that plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2 were in joint cultivating possession, therefore, the plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession cannot be accepted. The aforesaid decree has been affirmed in appeal.

5. Learned senior counsel for the appellants while inviting the attention of this Court to para 9 of the plaint as well as section 168 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, submitted that the plaintiff and his son Rambahadur were co-owners and since Rambahadur did not suffer from any disability, therefore, the land in question were leased out to defendants No. 1