Raghunath Singh Natha and Others vs Bheru Singh Gangaram

Mehta, J.—This is an application by one Raghunathsingh S/o Natha for leave to appeal u/s 23, Madhya Bharat High Court of Judicature Act.

In this case one Natha made a partition of joint family estate keeping one share to himself, one to his son Raghunathsingh and one to his son Gangaram father of the Plaintiff Bherusingh. Natha died in about 1916/17 after making the partition. Natha''s share consisting of the land in dispute devolved on his sons Raghunathsingh and Gangaram. However, the land and the property which fell to the share of Natha was allowed by Raghunathsingh and Gangaram to remain with Natha''s widow Gendibai for maintenance till 1934-35 when Gendibai died.

When the Plaintiff''s father Gangaram died, Plaintiff was a minor aged 2/3 years and was taken away by his maternal uncle. (sic) case is that during his absence and (sic) death of his father Raghunathsingh (sic) took steps to have the name of (sic)mutated on the land in dispute holding Chandrasingh as being the son of Natha the death of Chandrasingh, Raghunath fraudulently contrived to get the name minor son Karansingh mutated in place(sic)ceased Chandrasingh, holding out that (sic) singh was the son of Natha Plaintiff''s (sic) that when he returned in 1936 he lived (sic) with his uncle Raghunathsingh till 1939. (sic) Bherusingh was given 1/3 share of the land (sic) the ground that was the share of his (sic) Gangaram. Plaintiff says that he was (sic) of the mutation fraudulently contrived Raghunathsingh and that he claims half share in Natha''s lands.

In appeal the important point to (sic)sidered was as to how the title to agriculture holdings is acquired and the second, point assuming that a person is not in possession of agricultural holdings for more than 12, (sic) and it is in possession of one who is not (sic) under the law to hold the land, whether the of limitation can be pleaded.

On the construction of the Holkar (sic)Revenue Circular No. 13 of 1908, Clauses (4) and (5), I held that it was not competent (sic)the holder to make a bequest or gift and the volution will be governed by ordinary law. (sic) heritance and in this view of law it appear (sic)me clear that the Plaintiff is entitled to (sic) share of agricultural holdings which had to the share of Natha.

Mr. Sanghi''s contention is that venue Circular No. 13 of 1908 is not app(sic) in as much as there was no question of in this case.

It appears to me that in this case (sic)is a transfer of the land in favour of Chan(sic)singh by implied gift (See para 4 of the (sic)statement of the Defendant). Chandrasingh no right to the land and it was given to by the acquiescence of the other co-sharers hence it does amount to transfer and in view(sic) this, the provisions of Circular No. 13 of apply.

In my view this is not a fit case for(sic)of a certificate u/s 23 of the Bharat High Court of Judicature Act.

The test for determining whether(sic) is a fit one u/s 23 of the Act, is(sic) whether the point involved is one of great lic or private importance or is of such a that the decision thereon might result in a (sic)cedent governing numerous cases or (sic) there are any other exceptional circum(sic) justifying the grant of a certificate. This (sic)tainly not a matter of public importance it affects merely the parties of the case, (sic) large body of persons or community mere existence of a substantial question(sic) is not sufficient. A question of private (sic)tance means private importance to both parties to the litigation and not merely to (sic)of them.

These principles are clearly inundated decision reported in - Kalyan Das Vs. Brij Keshore and Others, . It was(sic) that there are, at any rate, four cases in(sic) leave to appeal under the Letters Patent(sic) be given. First, in a case in which a question (sic) general, importance has arisen and in(sic)estly in the public interest that a more (sic)tive decision should be given than is(sic) at the hands of a Single Judge. And to (sic)head must be added a case in which the(sic) involved is of altogether unusual private (sic) either by reason of the magnitude of (sic)terial issues involved or for some other Secondly there are cases in which a(sic) arises of very frequent occurrence. Such (sic) might arise where, on some new statute, arises which will govern the rights and (sic) of a large number of people. An autho(sic) decision in a case like that is necessary (sic) as a precedent for future cases.

(sic)thirdly, there are those cases in which existing authorities by which the Court is guided are either obscure or conflicting. such a case as that it is to the public inte (sic) that all doubts should be dissolved and for (sic)reason it is obviously proper to grant leave appeal Fourthly, a case in which the Judge (sic) (sic) reasonable doubt as to the cor(sic) of his own decision and thinks that for (sic) reason it is just to the parties that a fur-(sic) appeal should be allowed. Leave to appeal (sic) too lightly. see also (sic) Raghunath'' AIR Bom 213 (B) and - Asarfi Mander and Others Vs. Karu Mander and Others,

The construction of Revenue Circular No. (sic) 1908 (Holkar State), Clauses (3), (4) and (sic) has been decided by a series of cases of this(sic)Court and this case nearly follows those(sic)

I am clearly of opinion that in this case (sic)plied transfer is there in favour of Chan(sic) and it is in contravention of the Cir(sic)referred to above. I, therefore see no rea(sic) to grant a certificate and dismiss the appli(sic) with costs.

(sic)Pleader''s fees to be taxed at Rs. 10/-.