JOSEPH Vs. BATHO MARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In second appeal a learned Single Judge of the High court interfered with the concurrent finding on facts and dismissed the suit filed by the appellants as per the impugned judgment. Hence, the appellants preferred this appeal by special leave.

(2.) The factual position is this:

(3.) In the meanwhile the contesting respondents moved the Land tribunal through an application purportedly under Section 72-MM of the Act showing that the landowners have also signed therein and prayed for an order allowing the respondents to purchase the right, title and interest of the landowners in respect of the aforesaid 80 cents. It. is admitted that the appellants were not made parties thereto. It is numbered as OA No. 1810 of 1971. Without the appellants getting any knowledge about the pendency ofthe said OA the Land tribunal happened to pass Ext. A-7 order on 19-5- 1973 allowing the respondent to purchase the right, title and interest of the a landowner in respect of the said 80 cents of land. On the footing of the said order the Certificate of Purchase (Ext. B-IO) was issued on 18/7/1975. Armed with Ext. A-7 and Ext. B-IO the contesting respondents turned against the appellants and informed the Land tribunal before which OA No. 4308 of 1976 was pending that in respect of 80 cents of the disputed property the OA is not maintainable.