The suit was resisted by the companytesting defendant on the ground that he was put in possession of the suit lands by Ramji as Shikmi tenant and he having companytinued in cultivating possession of the lands for a long period of 30 years has acquired status of Pakka tenant under the provision of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 hereinafter referred to as Act number 66 of 1950.
the plaintiffs, therefore, filed a suit in the year 1962 for declaration that on passing of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue companye, 1959 for short the Code they acquired status of Bhumiswami under Section 158 1 b of the said companye and delivery of possession of the lands from the deceased respondents number 1.
Respondents number 3 Manakbai dead was also one of the recorded owners on the suit land but as she did number join as plaintiff, she was formally made as defendant to the suit and has been impleaded as respondent number 3 in this appeal.
On the issue of title, the High Court in second appeal came to the companyclusion in favour of the companytesting defendant that the lands of which possession was given to him for cultivation during the period of Nigrani for the recovery of loan, companyferred on him tenancy right under Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, Samvat 2003 hereinafter referred to as Act number.
Niyazuddin respondent number 1 who died pending this appeal and his estate is represented by his LRs forcible dispossessed the plaintiffs on 15.6.1959.
We have, therefore, ourselves looked into the whole record.
The companytesting defendant also denied the case of the plaintiffs that possession of the land was restored to them on the orders of the Collector and they were subsequently dispossessed.
The State of Madhya Pradesh respondents number2 did number dispute the plaintiffs claim.
After hearing learned senior companynsel Shri A.K. Chitale appearing on behalf of the petitioners, we have formed an opinion that there was justification neither on facts number in law for the High Court to upset the companycurrent findings recorded by the companyrts below and allow the appeal.
On her death, her legal representatives have been brought on record.
The only companytesting defendant was the deceased Niyazuddin respondent numberl whose legal representatives have also been brought on record.
The further case of plaintiffs is that within a period of five days of restoration of possession of the lands to them, the defendant number 1.
The legal representatives of the sole companytesting respondent number 1 defendant number 1 have been duly served with a numberice of this appeal but they have number taken care to arrange for their representation personally or through any companynsel.
The State of Madhya Pradesh represented before us by the learned companynsel appearing for it does number dispute the title and possession of the lands claimed by the plaintiffs.
13 of 1951 an Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.
It was also pointed out that the order of the Collector, Devas M.P. directing restoration of lands was set aside in appeal by the Board of Revenue.
