MUSHA Vs. RAMZANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal against an appellate decree of Civil Judge Bundi has been referred to a division bench by a learned single judge. It arises out of a suit for possession over agricultural land brought by Musha and Gulab appellants against Ramzani and Smt. Batul widow of Manna in respect of some agricultural land situated in village Jamitpura which was formerly part of the erstwhile State of Dudni. The suit was dismissed by both the courts below.

(2.) THE relevant facts for purposes of the present appeal are these. On 18th May 1945 Gulab transferred his Khatedari rights in 2.1/2 bighas of land in favour of Manna husband of Smt. Batul by means of an unregistered sale-deed for Rs. 100/-without obtaining the previous sanction of the Revenue Commissioner as required by sec. 20 of the Bundi State Tenancy Act. On the same day Gulab transferred his Khatedari rights in 3.1/2 bighas of land in favour of Ramzani by means of another unregistered sale-deed for Rs. 100/- without obtaining the previous sanction of the Revenue Commissioner. Possession over the land was transferred to Ramzani and Manna under the sale-deeds and they continued to remain in possession. On 19.9.50 the present suit for possession was instituted by Musha and Gulab in respect of the land inter alia on the ground that the transfers were null and void in view of sec. 20 of the Bundi State Tenancy Act as the permission of the Revenue Commissioner had not been obtained as required by the then existing law. THE lower courts however held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to possession. Firstly it was observed that the plaintiffs had neither alleged nor proved any fact or circumstance of the nature mentioned in sec. 20 of the Bundi State Tenancy Act which would have disentitled the plaintiffs from receiving the sanction of the Revenue Commissioner to the transfers and that being so the question of obtaining previous sanction was a mere matter of formality and the defect of want of such sanction was cured under sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Secondly it was observed that in any case the parties were in pari delicto and the plaintiffs were not entitled to get any relief at the hands of the court. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we are satisfied that the suit was wrongly dismissed.