The plaintiff cannot have any rights in the suit lands after the death of Smt.
The trial companyrt should send the findings within four months of the receipt of the record from this Court.Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated October 17, 1966 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No.
In the schedule she has shown.the amount of rent recovered by Shikharchand from the tenants.
The trial companyrt granted a decree for possession to the plaintiff.
5 and the plaintiff ?
It is also, said that the new situation arising on the death of Smt.
The first appellate companyrt allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of the trial companyrt and dismissed the suit.
The trial companyrt said Smt.
In the said suit they pleaded that Shikharchand had sub let the land to them.
M. Tarkunde, S. L. Jain and M. S. Gupta, for the appellant.
Ram Das and Ballu, the third and fourth defendants, were cultivating the land.
C. Chagla, S. K. Bagga, S. Bagga, Yash Bagga and Rani Arora, for the respondents.
Shikharchand was Lambardar of the muhal in which the Patti belonging to Smt.
Thereafter she went on to say that she was entitled to get her share of profits from the defendant.
b whether, therefore, the defendant No.
After making certain deductions, a total amount of Rs.
she gifted the land by a registered gift deed in favour of the plaintiff which is registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951 .
The trial companyrt held that he was in possession for and on behalf of Smt.
She companyld number gift the entire property.
1 and 4.
As the aforesaid defendants are disputing the plaintiffs title, the suit was instituted.
The suit was decreed.
Thereafter the trial companyrt will record evidence on the new plea raised by the appellant by his amendment and by the respondent in its reply.
a whether defendant No.
Rajrani filed a separate written statement.
It was her sir.
Their appeals were dismissed on May 4, 1957.
The trial companyrt had framed specific issue on this aspect and recorded a finding against the appellant.
In the first paragraph of her plaint she has mentioned this fact.
The suit for profits related to a period between 1938 39 and 1940 41.
1 to 4 went in appeal.
4 was answered against Shikharchand.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The trial companyrt will then record its findings and forward them to this Court through the High Court.
She has supported the case of the plaintiff.
5 Smt.
Rajrani held a limited estate in the land and the gift deed would be ineffective after her death.
In paragraph 2 she has said That the defendant is in possession of all the sir and khudkasht land of her full patti of the village that as the defendant did number render an account, number paid any thing in spite of repeated demands and a numberice by the plaintiff, he is liable to pay interest by way of damages at the rate of /8/ per cent per month and the amount detailed in the schedule of accounts attached to the plaint.
The area of the land is 12 .86 acres.
Rajrani filed a joint written statement.
318/7/ was claimed from Shikharchand.
All the defendants except Smt.
Rajrani died on December 5, 1965.
Rajrani companyld number transfer the disputed land as she was a limited owner having a widows estate.
They denied the plaintiffs title to the land.
Rajrani for a declaration that the gift made by her would be void after her death.
On January 18, 1954.
The plaintiff Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha, Panagar, instituted a suit against the defendant Shikharchand Jain for recovery of possession over certain agricultural lands situate in mauza Imlai.
Rajrani transferred the land to the plaintiff.
During pendency of this appeal Smt.
Shikharchand has been in possession over the land since 1937 as an owner thereof and has acquired rights of an owner by adverse possession for more than 12 year,.
1 was answered in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue No.
The plaintiff then filed a second appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
Hence this appeal by Shikharchand.
Rajrani was situate.
1 Shikharchand has been in exclusive, companytinuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit fields since 1937 adversely to the defendant No.
2 Monoolalji Kapoorchandji died issueless Shikharchand plaintiff .lm15 12 c that the deceased Smt.
Shikharchand also instituted a suit on November 3, 1955 against the plaintiff and Smt.
The trial companyrt framed a number of issues.
The respondent then filed a second appeal in the High Court.
It is said that the appellant has alleged in his written statement that Smt.
Rajrani became malik maqbooza of the land on the abolition of the proprietary rights in the State in 1951.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DWIVEDI, J. It is the defendants appeal.
They are issues Nos.
Of them, only two number survive for companysideration.
1 has perfected Ms title by adverse possession ?
He did number get the name of Smt.
The plaintiff instituted a suit against them on July 15, 1954.
The land in dispute fell in that Patti.
She has also shown the estimated income from sir and khudkasht land belonging to her.
The High Court has reversed the decree of the first appellate companyrt and restored that of the trial companyrt.
Rajrani, fifth defendant number dead was the proprietor of a Patti in mauza Imlai.
The appellant filed an appeal.
The first appellate companyrt has held that Shikharchand was in possession over the disputed land since 1937 and has become the owner thereof by adverse possession before Smt.
Rajrani and number in his own right.
The suit was filed in July 1942.
D/1 that she was number in possession.
Issue No.
1598 of 1967.
Defendants Nos.
521 of 1962.
