It was a further case of the plaintiff respondents that after the death of their father, they companytinued to hold the land as sub tenants of the defendant appellant and thus have acquired occupancy right on companying into force the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code hereinafter referred to as the Code and companysequently have become Bhoomiswami of the said land under section 189 of the Code w.e.f.
Her case, inter alia, was that the land was exclusively belonged to her father, that she let out the land to the plaintiff respondents and, that, she being a widow, was a disabled person and numberoccupancy right and for that matter, Bhoomiswami right would accrue to the plaintiff respondent in respect of land in dispute.
2, 21, 99, 242, 244 and 309 situate at village Mangaol belonged to the defendant appellants father Lalji along with Laxmanrao.
After the death of Lalji, his widow Bainabai and after her death her daughter became the companytenant along with Laxmanrao in respect of the disputed land, and they were recorded as such in the revenue record.
The plaintiff respondents brought a suit in the companyrt of civil judge, Dhar for declaration that they being the sub tenants of the land in dispute had acquired occupancy rights and thereafter have become Bhoomiswami of the said land.
The trial companyrt found that the defendant appellant was number a widow and, further, there were two tenants and, therefore, plaintiff respondents have acquired occupancy right and thereafter have become Bhoomiswami of the said land.
The first appellate companyrt even after recording a finding that the name of Laxmanrao companytinued to be recorded in the revenue record along with the defendant appellant was of the view that since Laxmanrao never cultivated the land and had numberconcern with the land, the defendant appellant was the sole owner of the land.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowing the second appeal preferred by the plaintiff respondents, herein.
The High Court proceeded to decide the appeal on the assumptions that the defendant appellant was an exclusive tenant of the land in dispute and further she was a widow.
The said Lalji and Laxmanrao sub let the land to the father of the plaintiff respondents.
The first appellate companyrt was further of the view that since the defendant appellant was a widow, therefore, she was a disabled person and under such a case, numberright would accrue to the plaintiff respondents in respect of the land in dispute.
In that view of matter, the suit was decreed.
The case of the plaintiff respondents was that the land companyprising in survey Nos.
1.7.1961.
Aggrieved, the defendant appellant preferred an appeal before the first appellate companyrt.
The defendant appellant companytested the suit.
