The result was that Ramachandrarao also became ex proprietary occupancy tenant of his sir plot No.
Thereupon, the appellants filed the suit claiming possession of this plot as mentioned above.
The rights in certain village properties, including Sir lands, vested in this joint family companysisting of Vishwasrao, his adopted son Shamrao, and his nephew Dinkerrao.
Thereafter, there was some dispute about the amount and the right of redemption under the mortgage between Shankerrao and the mortgagee, and this dispute was referred to an arbitrator, Sri Vipat.
Shamrao was adopted by Vishwasrao in the year 1895.
In 1940, Ramachandrarao had died and his ex proprietary occupancy rights in that plot No.
1227 in pursuance of the mortgage decree passed in terms of the award, she filed an application to the Revenue Court under sections 12 and 13 of the Central Provinces Tenancy Act 1 of 1920 hereinafter referred to as the Act for restoration of possession of her occupancy rights in this plot No.
Both parties filed appeals to the Court of the District Judge, Khandwa.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated April 28, 1961 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Second Appeals Nos.
1227 had vested in his widow, Sitabai, the respondent in these appeals.
The suit was partially decreed by the trial Court granting to the appellants the right to joint possession with Sitabai on the basis that they had 1/3rd share in the plot, while Sitabai companytinued to be entitled to the remaining 2/3rd share.
The High Court dismissed both the appeals and companysequently, the appellants have number companye up to this Court against that judgment of the High Court in this appeal by special leave.
R. Gokhale, S. T. Khirwadkar and I. N. Shroff, for the appellants.
S. Dabir, O. P. Malhotra, P. C. Bhartari and J. B. Dadachanji for the respondent.
The three of them jointly executed two mortgage deeds in that year, and, in the mortgage deeds, mentioned that they were mortgaging the property which was described as Malguzari Mouzas and Sir land of Tehsil Burhanpur District Nimar, and Maufi Government land situate in certain villages in Pargana Jainabad, Tehsil Burhanpur.
The liability under the mortgages was undertaken entirely by Shankerrao and Ramachandrarao.
In that partition Wamanrao separated from Shankerrao and Ramachandrarao who companytinued to be joint, and, with the companysent of the mortgagee, the mortgage liability was number companytinued against the share of Wamanrao.
In 1940,Ramachandrarao was declared insolvent and his share in the proprietary rights, which vested in the Insolvency Court, was sold and purchased by the mortgagee.
On this partition, in the property remaining joint with Shankerrao and Ramachandrarao, Shankerrao had 2/3rd share.and Ramachandrarao had 1/3rd share, because, originally, before partition Shankerrao was entitled to 1/2 share and Wamanrao to 1 share.
1227, was purchased by the mortagee.
The appellants then filed two appeals before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
The mortgages were in favour of the predecessors in title of the appellants.
In 1942,when she was dispossessed from this plot No.
The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants in respect of the 2/3rd share in this plot No.
Shankerrao received 1 share in the property, while Ramachandrarao and Wamanrao received 1/4 share each.
1227 having an area of 58.35 acres of Monza Shahpur, Tehsil Burhanpur in November, 1950 on the ground that they had been unlawfully dispossessed from this land.
The Revenue Court allowed her claim and restored her to the possession of this plot.
Krishnarao had two sons Dinkerrao and Shamrao.
In pursuance of that decree, Shankerraos 2/3rd share, including his rights in the sir plot No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
who gave his award, on the basis of which a decree was passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Khandwa.
984 and 985 of 1965.
1227, and allowed the respondents appeal in respect of the 1/3rd share of the same plot, with the result that the whole suit of the appellants stood dismissed.
In the year 1939, the proprietary rights of Shankerrao were purchased by one Vinayakrao, so that, under the law then existing, Shankerrao became the ex proprietary occupancy tenant of his share in the Sir plot No.
The parties to the partition were, therefore, Shankerrao, the adopted son of Shamrao Ramachandrarao and Wamanrao the sons of Dinkerrao.
By this time, Dinkerrao had died leaving two sons Ramchandrarao and Wamanrao.
The Court was of the view that, number having obtained possession over the cultivatory rights, the appellants were number entitled to claim actual possession from the mortgagors, who had become occupancy tenants of this plot.
In the year 1928, there was a partition in the joint Hindu family of the mortgagors.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. The appellants brought a suit against the res pondent for possession of a plot Kharsa No.
Vishwasrao and Shamrao had also died and Shamrao left an adopted son Shankerrao alias Narayanrao, who was the natural son of Dinkerrao, but had been adopted by Shamrao.
This land formed part of the property of one Laxmanrao who had two sons Vishwasrao and Krishnarao.
176 and 177 of 1969.
