Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 354 of 1965 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 18	 1962 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) in Second Appeal No.77 of 1960. B R. L. lyengar	 G. L. Sanghi and A. ' G. Ratnaparkhi for the appellants. MIC Sup. C.I./66 14 424 section N. Andley	 Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra	 for the respondent. B. R. L. Iyengar	 G. L. Sanghi and A. G. Ratnaparkhi	 for intervener No. 1. J. B. Dadachanji	 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain	 for intervener No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah	 J. In 1936 certain home farm land in Mouza Belam Bujurg	 Paragana Burwaha	 of the estate of the respondent were leased for cultivation to one Mangtya by the Court of Wards which was in management of the estate. The Court of Wards released the estate on June 14	 1951. The respondent thereafter terminated the tenancy and instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge	 Class 11	 Burwaha	 against Mangtya for a decree in ejectment and for mesne profits. The Trial Court decreed the suit for possession and awarded mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 300/per annum from the date of the decree till delivery of possession. The decree passed by the Trial Court was confirmed in appeal by the District Court	 Nimar	 and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Sons of Mangtya	 who died after the judgment of this High Court have preferred this appeal with special leave. The land in dispute is ryotwari land and Mangtya was a ryot wari sub lessee of the land. It was contended before the High Court in Rao Nihalkaran vs Ramchandra & Others ' that even though a ryotwari sub lessee of land in the Madhya Bharat region may ordinarily acquire under section 185 (1)(ii)(b) on the commencement of the Code the status of an occupancy tenant	 the tenant Mangtya was disentitled to that status since at the commencement of the tenancy the respondent was subject to a disability of the character set out in section 168(2). The High Court upheld the plea of the respondent; they held that the expression "holds the land from a Bumiswami who belongs to any one or mor of the classes" pre dicates two conditions that the land is held by a tenant under a Bhumiswami	 and that at the co ormmencement of the tenancy the landlord who subsequently acqured the status of a Bhumiswami belonged to any one or more of the classes mentioned in sub section (2) of section 168 of the Code. The only question which falls to be determined in this appeal is whether under section 185 (3) of the	 Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code the tenant Mangtya was disqualified from claiming the status of an occupancy tenant. By section 151 of the Code there was to be in the State of Madhya Pradesh a single class of tenure holders of land held from the State to be known as Bhumiswami. The (1) L. P. A. No. 14 of 1961 decided on Sgt. 24	 1962. 425 respondent may be by virtue of section 158(b) deemed to be a Bhumiswami. The rights of a Bhumiswami under the Code are heritable	 but in the matter of transfer inter vivos they are subject to restrictions prescribed by sections 165 & 168. Land comprised in the holding of a Bhumiswami may not by virtue of section 168(1) be transferred by way of a lease	 except in the conditions mentioned in sub sections (2) & (3) of section 168. A Bhumiswanii subject to one or more of the disabilities mentioned in sub section (2) may grant a lease of his holding. It has to be noticed that the provisions which create the tenure of a Bhumiswami and the restrictions thereon are prospective. We have held in Appeal No. 365 of 1965 Rao Nihalkaran vs Ramgopal(1) that a person whose tenancy rights were determined before the commencement of the Code will be invested with the status of an occupancy tenant provided he. holds land of the nature described in sub section (1) of section 185. But upon this rule is engrafted an exception by sub section (3) of section 185 that nothing in sub section (1) shall apply to a person who at the commencement of the Code holds the land from a disabled Bhumiswami. At the commencement of the Code the respondent acquired the tenure of a Bhumiswami under section 158(b) of the Code	 but it cannot be said that the respondent "belongs to any one or more of the classes mentioned in sub section (2) of section 168". For the exemption from the operation of section 185(i) it had to be established that the respondent at the commencement of the Code "belongs" to the disabled class. He undoubtedly did belong to the disabled class when the lease was granted	 but not at the commencement of the Code	 and what is decisive for the operation of the exemption under sub section (3) is the status of Bhumiswami at the commencement of the Code. By section 168(2) the prohibition against a Bhumiswami against transfer by way of a lease of the land comprised in his holding is inoperative	 where the Bhumiswami is subject to any one of the disabilities mentioned in cls. (i) to (ix) of sub section That provision is undoubtedly prospective. The Legislature has by sub section (3) of section 185 prohibited the acquisition of occupancy tenancy rights by a tenant of 'a Bhumiswami who was when the Code came into force subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in section 168 (2). It is clear from the terms of sub section (2) of section 168 proviso 2 that a lease made by a Bhumiswami who is subject to a disability remains valid only during the disability and one year after the determination of that disability	 by death or otherwise. Therefore a lease created by a Bhumiswanii	 even if he was at the date when he created the lease subject to a disability would become invalid on the termination of the disability and a period of one year thereafter. By sub section (4) of section 168 it is provided that a lease granted in pursuance of sub sections (2) or (3) shall be held on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the lessee and the Bhumiswami and it is further (1) ; 426 provided by sub section (5) that on the coming into force of the Code where any land is held on lease from a Bhumiswami who belongs to any one or more of the classes mentioned in sub section (2) such lease shall	 on the coming inito force of the Code	 be deemed to be a lease granted in. pursuance of sub section (2). The lease granted by a person who on the commencement of the Code acquires the status of a Bhumiswami is therefore deemed to be a lease granted in pursuance of sub section (2) of section 168	 if the Bhumiswami "belongs" to the class mentioned in sub (2). Reading section 185(3) with section 168 (2) and section 168 (5) it is clear that to attract exclusion from the operation of section 185 (1) the Bhumiswami must	 at the commencement of the Code	 be subject to the disability mentioned in sub section (2) of section 168. What is determinative is not the existence of disability at the date of the grant of the lease before the commencement of the Code	 but the disability of the Bhumiswami at the commencement of the Code. On the date on which the Code was brought into force	 the respondent was not a Bhumiswami belonging to any one or more of the classes mentioned in sub section (2) of section 168	 and the exception provided by section 185 (3) will not apply. It is true that the respondent was a minor at the time when the lease was granted by the Court 	of Wards. But he ceased to be a minor in 1951. By virtue of section 185 (1) the tenant	 notwithstanding the institution of the suit	 became an occupancy tenant of the land when the Code was brought into operation and the mere fact that the respondent was a minor at the date of the lease did not prevent the statutory acquisition of the status of an occupancy tenant by Mangtya under section 185(1). The appeal must therefore be allowed and the decree passed by the High Court set aside. The suit filed by the respondent will :stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs throughout.

In 1936	 certain ryotwari lands belonging to the estate of the respondent in Madhya Bharat were leased for cultivation to the appellants ' father M by the Court of Wards which was in management of the estate. After the Court of Wards released the estate in 1951 the respondent terminated the tenancy and instituted a suit for a decree in ejectment and for mesne profits. The trial Court passed a decree in the respondent 's favour and this was confirmed in appeal by the District Court as well as by the High Court. It was contended on	 behalf of the appellants that on the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code	 1954	 M acquired the status of an occupancy tenant as he held land of the nature described by section 185(1). On the other hand it was the respondent 's contention that even though a ryotwari sub lessee might acquire the status of an occupancy tenant; the tenant M was disentitled to that status since at the commencement of the tenancy the respondent	 was subject to a disability of the character set out in section 168(2). Accordingly	 the case fell within the exception to section 185(1) provided in sub section (3) of that section. By virtue of section 185(1)	 M became an occupancy tenant of the land when the Code was brought into operation; the appeal must therefore be allowed and the respondent 's suit dismissed. [426 E] For the exemption from the operation of section 185(1) to apply	 it had to be established that the respondent at the commencement of the code belonged to the disabled class. Although being a minor he belonged to the disabled class at the time when the lease w ; granted	 he did not belong to the disabled class at the commencement of the Code. What is decisive for the operation of the exemption under section 185(3) read with section 168(2) is the status at the commencement of the code. [425 E] Rao Nihalkaran vs Ramgopal ; 	 referred to.