JUDGEMENT

1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 24-9-1996 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Rewa in Civil Appeal No. 30-A of 1993 arising out of Judgment and Decree dated 18-8-1993 passed by Civil Judge Class II, Mauganj, Rewa in C.S. No. 146-A/1980.

2. This Appeal was admitted on the following Substantial Questions of Law :

a. Whether the appellant became occupancy tenant of the suit land by operation of Sections 168 and 169 of the M.P.

Land Revenue Code and thereafter acquired the rights of Bhumi-swami under Section 190 of the aforesaid Code?

b. Whether the plea of the appellant for adverse possession is sustainable in the eyes of law?

3. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal in short are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration of title, sale deed dated 27-6-1980 as null and void or in the alternative decree for possession. The disputed property is Kh. No. 183/6 area 3.358 hectares situated in village Dami, Tahsil Mauganj, Distt. Rewa. The defendant no.3 was the owner of the disputed land and in the year 1960, he permitted the plaintiff to cultivate the land on payment of damages of Rs 200/-. There was no written document in this regard. The plaintiff was made owner and possession was given. The plaintiff got the possession in the year 1960 and continued till 1970. On 6-5-<br/>

1970, the defendant no.3 again executed a Paat Kashtakari in favour of plaintiff on payment of damages of Rs. 200/-. From thereafter, the plaintiff is in open and hostile possession of the disputed land. On 28-

10-1980, the plaintiff was harvesting his crop. The defendants no.1 and 2 came to his agricultural field and instructed that the plaintiff has no right or title in the land and started harvesting the crop of the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know that a sale deed dated 27-6-1980 has been executed in favor of the defendants no. 1 and 2 for a consideration amount of Rs. 2000/-. It was claimed that the sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in continuous possession of the land in dispute from the year 1960 and accordingly he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession.

4. The defendants no. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and admitted that the defendant no.3 was the original owner of the land in dispute. However, it was denied that the plaintiff was placed in possession in the year 1960 after taking damages of Rs. 200/-. The claim that one Paat Kashtakari was executed and the plaintiff is in possession since, 1960 was denied. The defendants no. 1 and 2 have purchased the land by a registered sale deed dated 27-6-1980 which was in the knowledge of the plaintiff. It was specifically pleaded that the defendant no.3 has executed the sale deed voluntarily. It was pleaded that prior to execution of the sale deed, the defendant no. 3 was in possession of the land in dispute and the possession was also delivered to the defendants no. 1 and 2 on the date of execution of sale deed.

5. The Trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence, declared the plaintiff as owner of the land in dispute and the sale deed dated 27-6-1980 executed in favor of defendants no. 1 and 2 was declared null and void.

6. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court, the respondents filed an appeal, which has been allowed by the impugned Judgment and Decree. Whether the appellant became occupancy tenant of the suit land by operation of Sections 168 and 169 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and thereafter acquired the rights of Bhumi-swami under Section 190A of the aforesaid Code?

7. Section 190 of M.P.L.R. Code reads as under : 190. Conferral of bhumiswami rights on occupancy tenants. (1) Where a bhumiswami whose land is held by an occupancy tenant belonging to any of the categories specified in sub-section (1) of Section 185