JUDGMENT : This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants, who have lost from both the Courts below. 2. The respondent No. 1-Raghuveer, who was plaintiff No. 1 died during the pendency of this appeal and his legal representatives widow Smt. Savitri Bai, sons Anil and Pradeep have been arrayed as legal representatives No. 1 to 3. Plaintiff-Raghuveer along with Shriram (respondent No. 2), Shyam Sundar (respondent No. 3), Rammurty (respondent No. 4), Mahila Lapwahawali and Prabhudayal (respondent No. 5) filed a suit against the appellants who were arrayed as defendants No. 1 and 2 and also against Choti Bai (respondent No. 6), Ramkali (respondent No. 7), Ramdevi (respondent No. 8) whose legal representatives are respondents No. 8 (a) to 8 (c), Suresh Babu (respondent No. 9) and Ramesh Babu (respondent No. 10). 3. The plaintiffs and defendants are the members of one family whose common ancestor was Ramratan. The family tree of plaintiffs and defendants is as under:- Ramratan Badelal (dead) (Samvat 2004) Deenrlayal (dead) (Samvat 2006) Matadeen (dead 1-6-1980) Prabhudayal Plaintiff No. 6 Adopted son Premkunwar (dead) Wife Savitri daughter Def. No. 1 Husband Devidaval Def. No. 2 Chhoti Bai daughter Def. No. 3 Ramdevi Def. No. 5 Bhagwati (dead) Suresh Babu Def. No. 6 Ramesh Babu son Def. No. 7 Raghuveer Plaintiff No. 1 Shriram Plaintiff No. 2 Shyam Sundar Plaintiff No. 3 Rammurti Plaintiff No. 4 Lapwahawa (Wife) Plaintiff No.5 4. According to the plaintiffs, after the death of Ramratan oral partition took place in the family between his three sons namely Badelal, Deendayal and Matadeen and accordingly Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298 fell in the share of Deendayal, while other survey numbers of the suit property fell in the joint share of Badelal and Matadeen. The plaintiffs are claiming rights through Matadeen and Badelal. According to the plaintiffs, after the death of Deendayal, who was given Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298 in partition, the ownership right on these lands devolved in his widow Premkunwar. In para 6 of the plaint it has been specifically pleaded that Premkunwar died on 24-12-1979. The plaintiffs' predecessors Matadeen and Badelal died on 1-6-1980 and Samvat 2004 (corresponding year 1947) respectively. The adopted son of Badelal is plaintiff No. 6-Prabhudayal. 5. 61, 62 and 298 in partition, the ownership right on these lands devolved in his widow Premkunwar. In para 6 of the plaint it has been specifically pleaded that Premkunwar died on 24-12-1979. The plaintiffs' predecessors Matadeen and Badelal died on 1-6-1980 and Samvat 2004 (corresponding year 1947) respectively. The adopted son of Badelal is plaintiff No. 6-Prabhudayal. 5. According to plaintiffs, the defendants who are claiming through Deendayal are having only l/3rd right in the entire suit property and that l/3rd share of the Deendayal was already given to him in partition which took place long back in Samvat 1998 (corresponding year 1941). The mother of the defendant No. 1 -Mahila Savitri namely Premkunwar sold the part of entire suit property vide registered sale deed dated 25-10-1978 (Ex.P.1) to the husband of her daughter Mahila Savitri namely Devi Dayal (defendant No. 2) and vide registered sale deed Ex.P.2 dated 25-10-1978 she further sold the rest part of the suit property to another daughter Choti Bai for which she was not having any right because she was already having 1/3rd right in the entire suit property which was devolved in her from her husband, Deendayal who got this l/3rd share in the partition held in Samvat 1998, hence, according to plaintiffs, she could have sold only Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298 which fell in the share of her husband Deendayal and which is l/3rd portion of the entire suit property. Hence, it has been prayed by the plaintiffs that it be declared that Survey Nos. 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 297 and 298 were partitioned earlier and accordingly the plaintiffs are the owners of Survey Nos. 63, 64, 65 and 297 and on these survey numbers defendants are not having any right, title and interest and the survey numbers 61, 62 and 298 are in the ownership and possession of the defendants. Further it has been prayed that up to that extent the registered sale deed executed by Premkunwar in favour of the defendants No. 2 and 3 on 25-10-1978 be declared null and void against the plaintiffs. 6. The defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 filed their joint written statement while defendants No. 6 and 7 filed their separate written statement. Further it has been prayed that up to that extent the registered sale deed executed by Premkunwar in favour of the defendants No. 2 and 3 on 25-10-1978 be declared null and void against the plaintiffs. 6. The defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 filed their joint written statement while defendants No. 6 and 7 filed their separate written statement. The stand of these defendants in their written statement is that Mahila Savitri (defendant No. 1) was inducted as Shikmi (sub-tenant) on Survey No. 61, 62 and 298 by her mother Premkunwar, and therefore, she acquired occupancy tenancy right on coming into force of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") in terms of section 185 and by operation of law under sections 189 and 190 of the Code, she became Bhumiswami and because Premkunwar who was the widow of Deendayal, was having l/3rd share in the rest of other survey numbers other than Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298, which are Survey Nos. 63, 64, 65 and 297 she has rightly sold the suit property to defendants No. 2 and 3. Hence, it has been prayed that the suit be dismissed. 7. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs are the Bhumiswami of that Survey Nos. 63, 64, 65 and 297 and the defendants are not having any right, title and interest on these survey numbers and the sale deeds executed by Premkunwar on 25-10-1978 to defendants No. 2 and 3 namely Devi Dayal and Choti Bai are null and void against the plaintiffs. The trial Court further held and passed a decree that the defendants shall remain in possession of Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298, which were given to Deendayal. 8. The judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was assailed by defendants No. 1 and 2 only namely Mahila Savitri and Devi Dayal. The learned First Appellate Court modified the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court by dismissing the appeal of defendants. The findings of the learned trial Court that plaintiffs are the Bhumiswami of Survey Nos. 63, 64, 65 and 297 and the defendants are not having any right, title and interest on these survey numbers has been affirmed. The learned First Appellate Court modified the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court by dismissing the appeal of defendants. The findings of the learned trial Court that plaintiffs are the Bhumiswami of Survey Nos. 63, 64, 65 and 297 and the defendants are not having any right, title and interest on these survey numbers has been affirmed. The learned First Appellate Court further held that the sale deeds, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 executed by Premkunwar in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 are null and void against the plaintiffs up to that extent. 9. In this manner, the above said two defendants No. 1 and 2 namely Mahila Savitri and Devi Dayal have filed this second appeal before this Court. 10. This Court on 29-11-2002 admitted this second appeal on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether under section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, the property of the female of which she is recorded as owner since beginning, may be on the basis of Shikmi, will become absolute owner of the property and could not be deprived of by the finding that she could not have acquired the title under section 168 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code?" 11. The contention of Shri H.D. Gupta, learned senior counsel for the appellants is that since Mahila Savitri who was recorded as Shikmi from very beginning on Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298, would become absolute owner under section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 of these survey numbers and she cannot be deprived of by the finding that she could not have acquired the title under section 168 of the Code. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned two Courts below be set aside and the suit of plaintiffs be dismissed. 12. Per contra, it has been argued by Shri K.B. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 that Ramratan was having three sons namely Badelal, Deendayal and Matadeen and after the death of Ramratan the property in dispute devolved in his three sons and because in Samvat 1998 (corresponding year 1941) Deendayal separated himself and Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298 were given to him in partition and further that if his widow Premkunwar has inducted Mahila Savitri who is her daughter as Shikmi on these three survey numbers, the defendant No. 1 Mahila Savitri at the most she would become the absolute owner of these three survey numbers only, which is in total l/3rd portion of the entire suit property and because plaintiffs are claiming through other two sons of Ramratan namely Badelal and Matadeen they would become owners of the rest of the survey numbers of the suit property, and therefore, it has been prayed that there is no substance in this appeal because at length the two Courts below have given cogent reasons in decreeing the suit of plaintiffs. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel for plaintiffs/respondents has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Pal Singh and another vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, AIR 1996 SC 146 . By placing reliance on Full Bench decision of this Court in Sunder (Mahila) vs. Prahlad, 1981 JLJ 239 , it has been argued by learned senior counsel that before coming into force of the Code on 2-10-1959, the widow of Deendayal namely Premkunwar, who died on 24-12-1979, if inducted her daughter Mahila Savitri (defendant No. 1) as Shikmi (sub-tenant) on Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298 fell in the share of her deceased husband Deendayal and which devolved in her after the death of her husband, since she being a widow, the Bhumiswami rights would not accrue to Mahila Savitri even if she was inducted as Shikmi, on coming into force of the Code in view of section 73 and 74 of Madhya Bharat Land Revenue Tenancy Act, Samvat, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of Samvat, 2007") and hence defendant No. 1-Manila Savitri would not become the Bhumiswami on coming into force of the Code and after the death of Premkunwar on 24-12-1979 and the property would devolve equally to the heirs left by Premkunwar. In any way except Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298 the defendants are not having any right, title and interest on other survey numbers of the suit property and this position has been rightly taken into consideration by learned two Courts below and accordingly the suit has been rightly decreed. 13. In any way except Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298 the defendants are not having any right, title and interest on other survey numbers of the suit property and this position has been rightly taken into consideration by learned two Courts below and accordingly the suit has been rightly decreed. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Regarding substantial question of law:- 14. In order to answer the substantial question of law and in consequence to the fate of this appeal it would be quite relevant to go through the relevant laws applicable during the period when Deendayal, the predecessor of the defendants and Premkunwar died. The learned two Courts below found that Deendayal had died somewhere in 1947 and his widow Premkunwar died on 24-12-1979. Before her death on 25-10-1978 she (Premkunwar) sold the entire suit property vide registered sale deeds vide Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 to the defendant No. 2-Devidayal and defendant No. 3-Choti Bai. Needless to say, Devidayal is the husband of first daughter of Premkunwar namely Savitri while Choti Bai is the second daughter of Premkunwar. 15. In the year 1947 the Qanoon Mal Samvat 1983 of Gwalior State was in force and with effect from 15-8-1950 the Act of Samvat, 2007 came into force. Deendayal from whom the defendants are claiming right, title and interest in the suit property was not having son and at the time of his death he left his widow Premkunwar and four daughters namely Savitri, Choti Bai, Ramdevi and Bhagwati. Later-on Bhagwati also died, whose heirs are Suresh Babu (defendant No. 6) and Ramesh Babu (defendant No. 7) respectively. The finding of learned trial Court is that after the death of common ancestor namely Ramratan, partition took place between three brothers and in the said oral partition Deendayal got Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298, while rest of the suit property remained in the joint ownership of Badelal and Matadeen. Needless to say, plaintiffs are claiming Bhumiswami right, title and interest in the suit property from Badelal and Matadeen. The learned First Appellate Court did not find oral partition to be proved in the year Samvat 1998, but, specifically held that the defendants are exclusively possessing the Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298. Needless to say, plaintiffs are claiming Bhumiswami right, title and interest in the suit property from Badelal and Matadeen. The learned First Appellate Court did not find oral partition to be proved in the year Samvat 1998, but, specifically held that the defendants are exclusively possessing the Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298. If the said finding is taken to be correct, even then after the death of Deendayal 1/3rd of his right in the entire suit property would devolve in Premkunwar, being his widow. In this context the relevant law Qanoon Mai Samvat 1983 of Gwalior State may be taken into consideration. Section 253 of the Qanoon Mai speaks how the right of Kashtkaran Sakitul Milkiyat would devolve into the heirs after his death. According to this section his right would devolve in his son, but, if there is no son, according to section 253(2) it would devolve in his widow till she dies or remarries. Needless to say Premkunwar did not remarry, and therefore, the l/3rd share in the entire suit property of her husband Deendayal devolved in her. This fact is also proved that Premkunwar died on 24-12-1979. 16. An Act of Samvat, 2007 came into force with effect from 15-8-1950. According to section 3 of this Act subject to the provisions of section 2 of the said Act all Acts and Laws described in Schedule No. 1 to the extent mentioned therein and all other Acts, Laws, Rules. Standing Orders and Circulars relating to matters connected with Ryotwari Villages and Revenue Administration in force in any of the covenanting States shall stand repealed. Section 73 of the Act of Samvat 2007 speaks about the sub-lease and according to this section there is bar to give the holdings on sub-letting, but, the exceptions are given in section 74. For ready reference it would be condign to quote sections 73 and 74 of the Act of Samvat, 2007, which reads thus:- "73. Sub-leases. - No Pakka tenant shall sub-let for any period whatsoever any land comprised in his holdings except in the cases provided, for in section 74. Explanation. - For the purpose of this section an agreement whereby a person undertakes to cultivate the agriculturist holding with his own bullocks and on condition of payment of portion of total produce (bataidars) shall be deemed to be a sub-lease. 74. Sub-lease by a disabled person. Explanation. - For the purpose of this section an agreement whereby a person undertakes to cultivate the agriculturist holding with his own bullocks and on condition of payment of portion of total produce (bataidars) shall be deemed to be a sub-lease. 74. Sub-lease by a disabled person. -- (1) A Pakka tenant who is a widow, a minor, a lunatic and idiot or a person incapable of personally cultivating by reason of blindness or other physical infirmity or because he is in the Military, Naval, or Air Service of the Indian Dominion or the United State or is under detention or imprisonment, may sub-let the whole or any part of his holding: Provided..............................: Provided..............................: and provided.............................. (2) XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Emphasis supplied 17. On going through Khasra of Samvat 1999, this Court finds that all the three brothers namely Badelal, Deendayal and Matadeen were shown to be Pakka Maurusi Krishak having equal share in the suit property, but, in column No. 31 in respect to Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298 the name of Deendayal having exclusive possession for last one year has been mentioned which would mean that oral partition as stated by the plaintiffs in their plaint between the three brothers in Samvat 1998 has taken place, and therefore, the finding in that regard of learned trial Court appears to be correct that there was partition between the three brothers in Samvat, 1998. Be that as it may, in Ex.P.5 which is Khasra of Samvat 2007 exclusive possession of the widow of Deendayal namely Premkunwar on Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298 has been shown and it has been mentioned that these survey numbers are in the self cultivation of Premkunwar. Hence, even if Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298 were given by widow Premkunwar on Shikmi basis to her daughter defendant No. 1-Savitri, she would not become occupancy tenant under section 185 of the Code on the date of enforcement of the Code, 1959 because the said rights cannot be conferred to a sub-tenant since the holding was given to Savitri Bai (Shikmi/sub-lessee) by a widow who was a disabled person as envisaged under section 74 of the Act of Samvat, 2007, and therefore, by operation of law defendant No. 1-Savitri would not become Bhumiswami under sections 189 and 190 of the Code. Needless to say, Premkunwar died on 24-12-1979 and the present suit was filed by plaintiffs on 5-9-1984. 18. The exclusive possession on Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298 were shown to be of Premkunwar and the survey numbers were shown in the revenue record under self cultivation of Premkunwar. The defendants have filed Khasra of Samvat, 2009 (Ex.D.11) in which for the first time defendant No. 1-Savitri has been shown to be a Shikmi (sub-tenant) on Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298, which would mean that after the commencement of the Act of Samvat, 2007 widow Premkunwar gave Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298 to her daughter Savitri on Shikmi basis and this position continued in Khasra of Samvat 2004 to 2015 (Ex.D.12). The Khasra of Samvat 2014 to 2018 (Ex. D.13) also demonstrate the same position and this position continued even after coming into force of the Code of 1959. The rest other survey numbers were shown to be of Matadeen, Prabhudayal and Premkunwar. 19. Even after coming into force of present Code of 1959 the legal position as enumerated in section 168 is that if a disabled Bhumiswami has given the land on lease to any person in contravention to section 168 of the Code, the occupancy tenancy right would not accrue in the said lessee. In the present Code of 1959 under section 168(2)(1) a widow has been shown to be a disabled person. On going through the revenue record filed on behalf of defendants and plaintiffs it is gathered that l/3rd portion of the entire suit land which comprises of Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298 were already given to Deendayal in Samvat 1998 because on all these three survey numbers exclusive possession of Deendayal has been shown in Khasra of Samvat 1999 (Ex.P.4) in which it has been mentioned that these three survey numbers are in self cultivation of Deendayal for last one year. In Khasra of Samvat, 2007 these survey numbers are shown in self cultivation of Premkunwar which would mean that after the death of her husband-Deendayal these Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298 were in her self cultivation. This position continued in Khasra of Samvat 2009 (Ex.D.l1). On these Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298 Savitri Bai daughter of Deendayal has been shown to be Shikmi (sub-tenant). Indeed, it appears that the defendants are trying to take double benefit. 61, 62 and 298 were in her self cultivation. This position continued in Khasra of Samvat 2009 (Ex.D.l1). On these Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298 Savitri Bai daughter of Deendayal has been shown to be Shikmi (sub-tenant). Indeed, it appears that the defendants are trying to take double benefit. So far as Survey No. 61, 62 and 298 are concerned they are claiming to be the owner on the ground that Savitri became Bhumiswami of these survey numbers because she became occupancy tenant under section 185 of the Code and thereafter by operation of law she became Bhumiswami under sections 189 and 190 of the Code, and in the rest part of the suit property they are claiming their share on the ground that Premkunwar was having l/3rd share in it. According to me, Savitri would not become the Bhumiswami of these three Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298 because these survey numbers were given to her on Shikmi basis by her widow mother who was a disabled person under the Act of Samvat 2007 as well as under the Code of 1959, and therefore, for no rhyme or reason she cannot become exclusive Bhumiswami of these survey numbers. In this context the Full Bench decision of this Court Sunder (Mahila) (supra) placed reliance by the learned senior counsel for respondents is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In any manner since the defendants are claiming through Deendayal who was having only l/3rd share in the entire suit property they are not entitled to have any right, title and interest in the suit property more than l/3rd share. In this manner the ratio decidendi of the decision of the Supreme Court Vijay Pal Singh (supra) placed reliance by learned senior counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs is squarely applicable in the present factual scenario. 20. I do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that in the judgment and decree Ex.D.7 and Ex.D.8 passed in Civil Suit No. 130-A/65 dated 18-7-1968 it was held that on the entire suit property the defendants are having right, title and interest. That suit, which was filed by Premkunwar was dismissed, in which, present defendant-Mahila Savitri as well as Prabhudayal and Matadeen were arrayed as defendants. That suit, which was filed by Premkunwar was dismissed, in which, present defendant-Mahila Savitri as well as Prabhudayal and Matadeen were arrayed as defendants. I also do not find any merit in the contention of learned senior counsel of appellant that by virtue of the judgment and decree dated 11-7-1975 passed by the Civil Judge Class II Lahar in Civil Suit No. 670-A/1972 (Matadeen vs. Premkunwar and Savitri) it was held that defendants are having right, title and interest in the entire suit property because the suit property of that suit was altogether different and in this regard para No. 3 of the said judgment and issue No. 1 may be seen wherein the suit property of that suit was Survey No. 1927/1 and Survey No. 2218/2 while the survey numbers of the disputed property of the present suit are altogether different. 21. The substantial question of law is thus answered against the appellants that defendant No. l-Mahila Savitri would not become absolute owner (Bhumiswami) in view of section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. 22. Apart from what I have already held hereinabove, no other substantial question of law has been framed in respect of having any right of defendants except Survey Nos. 61, 62 and 298. 23. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court. The appellants shall bear the costs of plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 6. Counsel fee Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) if pre certified. Appeal dismissed.