ALLISAHEB MASUMSAHEB ALAS Vs. BABU LAXMAN CHAMBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is by the defendants arising out of a suit instituted by the respondent-plaintiff for possession of the suit land bearing S.No.172/4 measuring 4 acres and 19 guntas and assessed at Rs.10-2-0 of Terdal village. The suit as originally framed was onp for permanent injunction. Subsequently, the plaintiff ssought permission to amend the plaint seeking a decree for eviction on the ground that he has been dispossessed from the suit land during the pendency of the suit. That application for amendment has been allowed. The defendants resisted the suit and contended that they are the tenants of the suit land and are in possession of the same in that capacity. They denied that the plaintiff is the tenant of the suit land It is not disputed that the suit land belongs to the Padaki family. The case of the defendants is that the suit land was taken on lease in the year 1944. In support of that contention, the defendant relied upon a certified copy of the registered lease deed alleged to have been executed by the defendants in favour of Narayan Padaki, the landlord, on the 4th of February 1944 which has been produced at SI.No.1 with Ext.12. According to the defendants, the became tenants under the said lease deed which provided a period of six years. Their further case is that even after the expiry of the said period, they have continued to be in possession of the suit land as tenants

(2.) The learned Munsiff after considering the evidence on record decreed the plaintiff's suit. The said decree has been affirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge Though the appeal was filed by the defendants in the Court of the Civil Judee at Biiapur, the same was subsequently withdrawn to the District Court at Bijapur in exercise of the powers conferred on the District Court under S.24 CPC , to be hereinafter referred to as the C.P.Code.

(3.) Sri G. D. Shirgurkar, the learned Counsel for the appellants firstly contended that the decree passed by the learned District Judge is without jurisdiction. He submitted that as the decree was passed by the learned Munsiff on the 28th of February 1966, after the coming into force of the Mysore Civil Courts Act, 1964, it is only the Court of the Civil Judee that was competent to entertain and dispose of the appeal in view of S.20 of the Mysore Civil Courts Act. It was therefore urged that though the defendants preferred their apoeal before a proper forum, the withdrawal of the appeal by the District Court to its file and the disposal of the said appeal is without jurisdiction. It is clear from the opening paragraph of the judgment of the learned Dist. Judge that he has withdrawn the appeal to his Court from the Court of the Civil Judge where the appeal was pending as there was not sufficient work for his Court. Though the provision of law under which the learned District Judge withdrew the appeal to his file has not been stated, it is clear that the same must have been done in exercise of the powers vested in the District Court under Section 24 of the CPC. Sri Shirgurkar relied upon the provisions of S.20 of the Mysore Civil Courts Act, 1964, which reads as follows :